Email | query@jkbarassociation.com

KASHMIR HISTORY

KASHMIR HISTORY VIS UN
P R E F A C E
The present State of J&K and territories comprised within it have evolved over the years In order to understand the history of Kashmir post 1846, it is important to go through the Treaty of Amritsar dated March 16, 1846, which was a sequel to the treaty of Lahore dated March 9, 1846 concluding the first war between the British and Sikhs. The Sikh Darbar under Article 3 of treaty of Lahore had ceded to British the territory between Beas and Sutlej. In addition, as an equivalent for One Crore of rupees of the one and a half Crore of rupees, demanded as war indemnity, which they were unable to pay, the Sikhs were made to cede to the British, for ever, territory in the hills lying between Beas and Indus including provinces of Kashmir and Hazara. In terms of clause 12 of the treaty it was also agreed that;
“In consideration of the services rendered by Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu to the Lahore State, towards procuring the restoration of relations of amity between the Lahore and British Governments, the Maharaja hereby agreed recognize the independent sovereignty of Raja Gulab Singh, in such territories and districts in the hills, as may be made over to the said Raja Gulab Singh by separate agreement between himself and the British Government, with the dependencies thereof, which may have been in Raja’s possession since the time of Late Maharaja Kharak Singh and the British Government in consideration of the good conduct of Raja Gulab Singh, also agrees to recognize his independence in such territories and to admit him to the privileges of a separate treaty with the British Government”.
The treaty of Amritsar constituted this separate arrangement and the Maharaja Gulab Singh was made to pay the sum of Rs. 75,000,00/- in consideration of the territories transferred to him under treaty of Amritsar. Article 1, 3 and 10 of the said treaty reads as under :-
“Article – 1. The British government transfers and makes over for ever, in independent possession, to Maharaja Gulab Singh and the heirs male of his body, all the hilly or mountainous country, with its dependencies, situate to the eastward of the river Indus and westward of river Ravi, including Chamba and excluding Lahul, being part of the territories ceded to the British government by the Lahore State, according to the provisions of Article 4 of the treaty of Lahore dated 9th March, 1846.
Article – 3. In consideration of the transfer made to him and his heirs by the provisions of foregoing articles, Maharaja Gulab Singh will pay to the British government, the sum of seventy five lacs of rupees (Nanak Shahi) fifty lacs to be paid on the ratification of this treaty and twenty five lacs on or before the 1st October of the current year AD 1846.
Article – 10. Maharaja Gulab Singh acknowledges the supremacy of the British government and will in token of such supremacy, present horse, twelve perfect shawl goats of approved breed (six male and six female) and three pairs of Kashmir shawls”.
The treaty of Amritsar, together with the treaty of Lahore governed constitutional relations between the State of J&K and the British government. According to treaty of Amritsar, Maharaja Gulab Singh was assured complete sovereignty in internal affairs of the State and British aid in case of external aggression. This position was maintained when British crown took over control of the government from the last India Co in 1858.
After the treaty of Amritsar the Dogra rule in Kashmir was a despotic and tyrannical one. It took Gulab Singh, with the British military assistance some two years to establish himself in his new possession as his presence was not welcomed by the population. He cause some of his opponent to be flayed alive. During Dogra rule public offices and posts in the army were reserved for Dogras. A Hindu on conversion would lose all his inherited property, but not so a Muslim on conversion to Hinduism. Cow slaughter was a capital offence. All land belonged to Maharaja. Taxation was extremely heavy. No freedom of speech, expression or association was allowed. All avenues of employment for Muslims were closed to them. As early as 1849, the British had to intervene in the affairs of the State although somewhat reluctantly. The intervention by British, however, made a little change in the deplorable plight of the people. The archives of the State department of Government of India are full of dispatches about the Dogra misrule and repression in the State.
In the years that followed the Dogra acquisition of valley of Kashmir and the creation of new state of J&K, Gulab Singh and his successors expanded their influence to the north west into, what the British in the later part of the 19th Century often referred to as Dardistan, including Gilgit, Hinza nagar and other tracts adjacent to Chinese Sinkiang and Afghanistan to create what are today known as northern areas.
J&K State has various parts Ladakh became part of Kashmir in 1834, when it was conquered to Dogras Baltistan was conquered in 1846. Valley of Kashmir was purchased from the British in 1846. Jammu was the heartland of Dogras. Dogra Rule was sought to be established in Gilgat agency between 1850-90, part of which was leased by British in 1935. In subsequent years, Poonch also became part of State.
In 1941 the total population of Jammu province was 1,561,580 with a small Muslim majority in Mirpur and Riasi districts. The population of Kashmir in 1941 was of 1,728,600 inhabitants of whom 1,615,500 were Muslims. The Muslim population of Kashmir, with no tradition of links with Jammu had a highly developed culture of their own, with a distinctive language, Kashmiri, which is unique to the mountains of North-Western corner of sub-continent.
According to 1942 census, the population picture of the State was as under:
Total population 4,021,616
Muslims 77.11%
Hindus 20.12%
Sikhs 1.64%
Buddhists 1%
Muslims formed 93.7% of population in Kashmir, 61% in Jammu province and 87.46% in Frontier Districts.
Before 1947, the entire state of J&K described above, was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh – last Maharaja of the State. In Indian sub-continent, consequent to the decision taken at round table conference, Government of India Act, 1935, came to be enacted. It marked beginning of self-governing. By March, 1946 after the end of Second World War Sir Stafford Cripps proposed Cabinet Mission plan. Interim government was installed on October 2, 1946. At that time there were 565 Maharajas and Nawabs who were left with the responsibility of determining their own future. State of J&K was a State, different from other majority of States. It was not a part of British India. It had large territory, population and special geographical position.
The sub-continent was partitioned in the dominion of India and Pakistan in 1947. Princely states, which were not part of British India, were given option to accede to either of the two dominions. State of J&K, had unique features, not shared by other princely states. Ruled by a Hindu, with its large Muslim population it was geographically contagious to Pakistan. It is very relevant to mention here that legal provision of accession of states to either of the new dominions was made by adaptation of section 6 of Government of India Act, 1935, but section 7 of the Indian Independence Act, provides for the continuance of exiting arrangement between the states and the new dominions or provinces thereof in respect of customs, communications, posts and telegraph and like matters till such arrangements were denounced by either party or substituted by fresh agreement.
On July 25th, 1947, princely states were informed that “technically and legally” they were independent, but there were certain geographical compulsions which could not be avoided. In order to enable the princely states to take responsible and rationale decision, sometime in future, they were to enter into standstill agreements with authorities of India and Pakistan. Choices were made by majority of princely states except Hyderabad, Junagadh and J&K, withholding the decision to take the choice gave rise to political manoeuvring. For months, after independence of the sub-continent from British Rule the Maharaja had attempted to remain independent and for the said purpose he entered into a standstill agreement with Pakistan through an exchange of telegrams between the two authorities on August, 12 and 15, 1947. The State had requested a similar arrangement with India through a telegram dated August 12, 1947, but India delayed to negotiate.
A number of telegrams were exchanged between the State of J&K and Pakistan during September and October 20, 1947. Kashmir complained against violation of standstill agreement and Pakistan alleged suppression and massacre of Muslims in the State and also incursions into its territory by armed bands from Kashmir. The earliest of these telegrams available is that of October 12, 1947 from Pakistan to Kashmir alleging suppression of Muslims. The allegations were denied by State Prime Minister in a telegram dated 15 October, 1947 and offered to have an impartial inquiry into the matter. Mr. Ali Mohammad Jinnah, the Pakistan Governor General welcomed the suggestion of impartial inquiry, in his reply dated 20 October, 1947. No reply was thereafter sent to Pakistan Governor General and even though Pakistan sent a senior official also to Srinagar, but Maharaja declined to have any talks with him. It was because of the trouble in the State more particularly revolt in Poonch and variety of other factors paved way for intense political manoeuvring, which resulted the sending of the troops by India in Kashmir. The subsequent developments of taking the issue of Kashmir to the United Nations Organisation by India and then passing of around thirty resolutions by Security Council, promising plebiscite in the State show that Kashmir is a disputed territory and its solution lies only in the implementation of Security Council resolutions.
In the year 2014, a writ petition was filed by “We the Citizens” claiming to be a Non-Government organisation, in the Supreme Court of India, for declaring constitution (Application to J&K) order, 1954 adding new Article 35-A to the constitution, as ultra-vires to the Constitution of India and invalid, even though, the petitioner had arrayed Union of India and State of J&K as respondents to the writ petition, but because of the importance of the issue involved in the writ petition. The J&K High Court Bar Association, Srinagar, decided to intervene in the matter, as according to it, the writ petition had been filed on mala-fide and extraneous considerations and was aimed at to do away with the Special Position of the J&K State and change its demography for Article 35-A which was added to Indian Constitution by Constitution (Application to J&K) order, 1954 provides as under :
“35-A, Saving of laws with respect to permanent residents and their rights: Notwithstanding, anything contained in this Constitution, no existing law in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and no law hereafter enacted by the Legislature of the State.
(a) Defining the clauses or persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, or
(b) Conferencing on such permanent residents any special rights and privileges or imposing upon other persons any restrictions as respects;
i. Employment under the State Government;
ii. Acquisition of immovable property in the State;
iii. Settlement in the State, or
iv. Right to scholarships and such other forms of aid as the State Government may provide, shall be void on the ground that is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any rights conferred on the other citizens of India by any provision of this Part”.
and in case the said Article is declared ultra-vires, it would allow any non-State Subject to settle in the State and besides getting employment, will also be entitled to acquire immovable property. The Bar Association accordingly, constituted a team of lawyers to pursue the matter in the Supreme Court and get the writ petition dismissed. The team of lawyers, so constituted, prepared a detailed application/affidavit, annexing therewith all the relevant documents and filed the same in the Supreme Court. The affidavit and the documents clearly show that the final disposition of the State lies only in the implementation of Security Council Resolutions and the Indian Government is bound to implement those resolutions, because it is committed to the same in terms of proviso added to Article 253 of the constitution and the commitments it has made to the people of Kashmir, both, at the National and International level.
Srinagar M. A. Qayoom,
05.01.2016 President,
J&K High Court Bar Association,
Srinagar

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION NO: 722 OF 2014

In the matter of:

We the citizens .. Petitioners

V e r s u s

Union of India and Anr. .. Respondents

GROUNDS ON BEHALF OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION SRINAGAR IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION SEEKING IMPLEADMENT AS A PARTY/ INTERVENOR IN THE AFORESAID PROCEEDINGS.

I, Bashir Sidiq S/O Muhammad Ramzan R/O Dalgate, Srinagar, General Secretary, Jammu and Kashmir Bar Association, Srinagar, presently in New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the application is being filed on behalf of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association for being arrayed as a respondent in Writ Petition No: 722 of 2014 and the affidavit filed in support of the application and to demonstrate the grounds on the basis of which impleadment is sought by the Association in the aforesaid proceedings before this Hon’ble court.
2. That the deponent is the authorized representative of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Srinagar and being fully conversant with the facts bearing upon the matter in issue in the Writ Petition No: 722/2014 filed in this court, I am competent to swear this affidavit.
3. That the deponent has read and understood the contents of the writ petition, and having regard to the statements made in the writ petition as also the issues involved, the Association seeks impleadment on the following grounds and basis.
A) That the writ petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order declaring that Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 as contained in para (j) adding new Article 35-A to the Constitution, as ultra vires the Constitution of India as invalid. Further relief of declaration is sought to the effect that the Constitution of India can be amended only as provided under Article 368 of the Constitution.
I state and submit that the writ petition proceeds on incorrect facts and on misleading grounds. It has not been filed bonafide. It seeks adjudication in respect of issues which are essentially political in nature. All the issues raised have already been answered by this Hon’ble court in several decisions.
B) That in para 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made following conclusions:

“Thus it is apparent that Kashmir is part of Indian Domain like other States. Prior to the year 1935, accession was complete which is evident from the provisions made and schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935.”
The aforesaid conclusion is misconceived. This is so for the following reasons:
i) That the writ petitioner has drawn the aforesaid conclusion on the basis of the statement made by him in para 3 of the writ petition. In para 3 following statements have been made:
a) That under Regulation 1 of 1991 (1934) the Ruler declared that he was possessed of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial in relation to the State and these were always inherited, possessed and retained by the Ruler.
b) That under Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, XIV of 1996 (1939) proclaimed on February 11, 1939 the constitutional power of the Ruler under the Act of 1939 was the same as those under earlier laws.
c) That under Section 7(1)(b) of Indian Independence Act 1947 suzerainty over the Indian States lapsed and consequently all Treaties and Agreements in force on the date of passing of the said Act also lapsed. With the lapse of British Paramountcy, the State of Jammu and Kashmir theoretically became free from the limitations imposed by Paramountcy.
d) That under Government of India Act, 1935, which came into force with effect from 2nd August, 1937, in view of the provisions contained in Section 2, 5 and 6 alongwith Schedule I of the said Act “Kashmir” came to be included at Serial No: 3 under the heading “Council of States” and the “Federal Assembly” representatives of the Indian States.
It is on the aforesaid premises that the conclusion referred to above has been drawn by the writ petitioner.

Submission on behalf of the Bar Association.
1. That so far as Regulation 1 of 1991 (1934) and its provisions are concerned, the same are not in dispute. Similarly so far as the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, XIV of 1996 (1939) are concerned, the same are also not in dispute. So far as the provisions of Indian Independence Act of 1947 are concerned, the same are also not in dispute.
The conclusions drawn by the writ petitioner are however farfetched, misconceived and do not flow from the provisions of these Acts.
2. That the statements made by the writ petitioner that “Kashmir” was mentioned at Serial No: 3 of the Schedule in the Act of 1935 read with Sections 2, 5 and 6, lead to the conclusion that Kashmir was a part of Indian Dominion and that the accession prior to year 1935 was complete, is a thoroughly misconceived statement intended to mislead this Hon’ble Court.
3. That the State of Jammu and Kashmir was never a part of “British India”. The State of Jammu and Kashmir never acceded to British India or to any kind of “Federation” at any point of time. The State of Jammu and Kashmir has always remained an Indian State as per the definition contained in Government of India Act, 1935.
There is no document or any kind of evidence to show accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir with any Federation prior to promulgation of 1935 Act.
4. That before 1935 there was no enactment or law providing for accession of Indian States with British India.
5. That none of the Indian States has ever acceded to British India before 1935.
6. That all the “Indian States” continued to retain their status, sovereignty, independence except that they were under British “Suzerainty”. The “British India” comprised of such states and territories which were directly under the control of the “British Crown” subject to their jurisdiction in all matters. Government of India Act, 1935 recognized the said position and made distinct provisions for “British India” and for “Indian States”. It was for the first time that under the Government of India Act, 1935 “British India” was declared and constituted as a “Federation”. The Act for the first time under Section 5 and 6 made provision for the accession of “Indian State” to the “Federation”.
Why at Serial No: 3 in the Schedule appended to Act of 1935 Kashmir is mentioned?

1. The contention of the writ petitioner that by mentioning Kashmir in Part II of Ist. Schedule, providing for composition of the “Federal Legislature” “Kashmir” is shown to have acceded before 1935. This contention is preposterous for the following reasons:
a) That in Government of India Act, 1935 Section 5 for the first time provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty to declare, by proclamation, as from the date appointed in this behalf, that there shall be “united” in a Federation under the Crown by the name of “Federation of India”. The areas constituting Federation were declared under Section 2 of the Act. Under the said provision all rights, authority and jurisdiction, belonging to Emperor of India, were to be exercised by His Majesty except in so far as may be otherwise provided. Section 5 proceeded on the basis that there existed territory in India under Section 2 of the Act and it shall include any “Indian State” which has acceded or may thereafter accede to the “Federation”. The conditions for accession of “Indian State” included accession to the Federation and acceptance of “Instrument of Accession” executed by the Ruler of “Indian State”. Under the said provision it also came to be provided that upon accession the “Federation” in relation to the acceding State would exercise all such functions as may be vested under the Act and the “Federation” would also assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given within the acceding State to the provisions of Act of 1935 in so far as they are applicable by virtue of “Instrument of Accession”.
The declaration by proclamation under Section 5 could only be made if the acceding State would satisfy the following conditions:
i) That the Ruler of the acceding State would be entitled to choose not less than 52 members of the Council of State, and
ii) The aggregate population is at least one half of the total population of the State.
Section 5 and 6, therefore, envisaged a position that where an “Indian State” intended to be “united” with the “Federation” such “Indian State” was required to execute “Instrument of Accession” and upon such execution such State or group of States would have representation in the “Council of State” and the “Federal Assembly” to the extent indicated in the Schedule.
Since Kashmir State was not part of “British India” but only an “Indian State” it would have three seats in Council of States and four seats in the “Federal Assembly” provided it satisfied the conditions mentioned in Section 5 and 6 of the Act. “Kashmir State” did not satisfy the prescribed conditions nor executed any “Instrument of Accession”, or else acceded to the “Federation”. Instead it continued to retain its status as an “Indian State” outside Federation.
The contention of the writ petitioner is incorrect and mischievous. It misinterprets Act of 1935 and Part II of Schedule-I.
2. That in Part II of Schedule-I number of States and or group of States have been mentioned with their population and the seats in “Council of States” and “Federal Assembly”. The States and Group of States mentioned include States like “Hyderabad” and “Juna-Garh”. None of these States, like “Jammu and Kashmir”, acceded to the Federation of India and none of them satisfied the conditions prescribed by the Act of 1935. The “Kashmir State” never “united in a Federation under the Crown” nor it, ever acceded to the Federation.
Evidence to show that there was no accession to the Federation prior to the Act of 1935.

1. That after the Act of 1935 was promulgated, if any, Indian State acceded to the “Federation of India” the consequences provided by Section 6 as indicated below had to follow the accession.
i) That all the Federal Institutions like His Majesty the King, the Governor General of India, The Federal Legislature, The Federal Court or any other Federal Authority established for the purposes of the Federation would become entitled to exercise in relation to the State such functions, power and authority as were vested in the Federal Authorities under the Act of 1935. The Federation would also give due effect to the Act of 1935 in so far as they were applicable by virtue of Instrument of Accession. A Ruler could be a part of the Federation only to the extent of the matters specified by “Instrument of Accession”.
The “Kashmir State” throughout enjoyed its own independent sovereign character. Constitution Act of 1939 was proclaimed by the Ruler after four year of 1935 Act. This Constitutional Act created institutions in the “Kashmir State” including Legislature to make laws for the State. It gave constitutional recognition to the High Court as constituted in the year 1928 and created “Board of Judicial Advisors” – as Supreme Judicial Authority. It dealt with all such matters as generally form subject matter of Constitution. Had “Kashmir State” acceded to “Federation of India” or brought within the purview of Federation, it was not possible for the Ruler to have made the “Constitution for the State” and or to make laws for the State.
ii) That the Ruler retained full sovereignty under “Treaty of Amritsar” dated March 16, 1846. At no stage the Ruler parted with any of his authority, be that legislative, judicial or executive in favour of the “Federation of India”. This being the position before and after the Act of 1935 was promulgated, clearly negates the contention of the writ petitioner that the “Kashmir State” had acceded to the Federation before 1935 or that the name of the State mentioned in Part II of Schedule-I of the Table of Seats means that the State had acceded to the Federation.
iii) That no member was ever elected to Federation from Kashmir State. The Act of 1935 never applied to the “Kashmir State”. There was no Act prior to 1935 providing for accession of the “Indian States” to the “Federation of India”.
iv) That the Instrument of Accession purported to be dated 26.10.1047 makes no mention of any accession being in place before that date, either under the Government of India Act, 1935 or prior to it.
It is, therefore, submitted that the issue raised by the writ petitioner on this count is baseless, misconceived and intended to mislead the Hon’ble court.
2. That apart from above it is clear that under Section 5 and 6 of the Act of 1935, no notification has been issued for enforceability of the said provision. This fact is evident from Appendix XIII appended to the Government of India Act, 1935. The Ist. Schedule appended to the Act provides for the composition of the “Federal Legislature”. According to the Schedule and table of “Seats of Council” of State, “Kashmir State” is not mentioned. The said Schedule contained representatives of “British India”. Since “Kashmir State” was not a part of “British India” it does not find place in Part I of the Ist. Schedule.
3. That the “Instrument of Accession” mentioned by the petitioner, expressly states that after independent dominions, known as “India” and “Pakistan”, are set up, in accordance with the Government of India Act, 1935, an “Indian State” may accede to the dominion by an “Instrument of Accession”. This right is, therefore, exercised, as per the writ petitioner under Government of India Act, 1935 and Indian Independence Act, 1947.

These facts clearly belie the stand taken by the writ petitioner that “Kashmir State” had acceded to Dominion of India, before 1935, when in fact no such Dominion existed.
4. That besides Government of India Act, 1935 as was in force in 1947, several other legislations were also passed. These were;
i) Indian Independence Act of 1947
ii) Indian Provisional Constitution Order, 1947
iii) Indian Provisional Constitution Ist. Amendment Order, 1947.
iv) Indian Provisional Constitution 2nd Amendment Order, 1947.
All these statutes including substituted Section 6 of the Government of India Act, 1935, were intended to pave way for the “Indian States” to accede either to dominion of India or to dominion of Pakistan. Under Cabinet Mission non-acceding States could enter into a “Standstill agreements”.
5. That the aforesaid statutes clearly provided either for total accession or partial accession or conditional accession and/or limited accession. It was entirely for the Ruler to determine nature and extent of the accession.
So far as the “Kashmir State” is concerned, the then Ruler did not accede to dominion of India fully and completely like other States, merging their legal status with the Union. A bare look at the “Instrument of Accession” shows that the accession was only in respect of three matters i.e., Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications.
6. That in terms of the aforesaid Statutes the “Governor General of India” was required to signify his acceptance to the accession. The communication of the Governor General of India dated 27.10.1947 shows the nature of the acceptance communicated by him to the Ruler.
Having regard to these developments, it is submitted that “Kashmir State” at no stage either in fact or in law merged with dominion of India. Instead being an “Independent State” with all the characteristics of an independent country in terms of “Treaty of Lahore” dated March 9, 1946 and “Treaty of Amritsar” dated March 16, 1846, “Kashmir State” retained its legislative, executive and judicial powers except to the limited extent mentioned in the “Instrument of Accession”. This position was accepted by the Governor General of India though subject to the condition mentioned in letter dated 27.10.1947.
7. That Indian Independence Act, 1947 was enacted by the British Parliament. Under the said Act the suzerainty over the Indian states lapsed and with it all Treaties and Agreements including all obligations and rights, authority or jurisdiction also came to an end. Exception made by proviso to Section 7 of the Act protected the Agreements which related to customs, transit and communications, posts and telegraphs or other like matters until such agreements were denounced by the Ruler. It is submitted that the then Ruler of the State entered into a Standstill Agreement on 15.08.1947 in terms of the Memorandum of Cabinet Mission with the dominion of Pakistan, but dominion of India desired further discussions to enter into any such agreement with the Ruler of the Kashmir State. The customs, communications, posts and telegraphs in the Kashmir State, which had their network spread into areas, now under the control of Pakistan, continued to remain as they were. The purpose of Standstill Agreement was to allow the continuance of aforesaid services which could not be brought to an end immediately upon lapse of suzerainty. The ruler of the State, as the events show, did not want to accede either to dominion of India or to dominion of Pakistan.
8. That the petitioner has also placed reliance on Section 8 of the Indian Independence Act. Under the said provision newly created dominion could continue to be governed, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the Government of India Act, 1935 until the dominion would enact its own Constitution by the Constituent Assembly of that dominion. Each dominion was to have its own Legislative Body within its territories. The provision of Sections 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 do not show that Kashmir State was a unit of Federation of India prior to 1935 or there was any kind of accession of the State prior to 1935. Kashmir State did not “continue” to be part of Indian dominion (Union of States) “Instrument of Accession”, limited in its scope and operation, is the only document evidencing relationship. The Ruler was not required to “denounce” Government of India Act, 1935 or Indian Independence Act, 1947.
Effect of XXVI Amendment Act
1. That the writ petitioner has also stated that by virtue of 26th Amendment Act, the definition of the “Ruler” as contained in Article 366(22) was changed. Therefore, all the acts done by the “Ruler”, prior to the said Amendment, would go. The submission is misconceived. The 26th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 has not been applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The constitutional position, prior to the amendment remains the same in so far as the State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned. The submission, therefore, is unsustainable.
Making of the Constitution of India.
1. That after several “Indian States” merged with Union of India three Indian States i.e. State of Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad and Juna Garh did not accede to the Union of India. After August 15, 1947 India did not comprised only of British India, as it was before, but also of the Indian States which had merged with it. The “Ruler” of “Kashmir State” continued to maintain his independent position till October 26, 1947 when, he executed “Instrument of Accession”, limited in content, the genuineness and validity of which is otherwise doubted by several historians and the “Governor General of India” accepted it conditionally.
2. That during the making of the Constitution of India and, having regard to indefinite and uncertain position of the State in the matter of accession, coupled with ground reality and the Resolutions of United Nations, special provision was incorporated in the Constitution of India under Article 370. The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution, in view of the peculiar position of the State accepted the position that the Constitution which was being made cannot be made applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. But a mechanism can be provided to enable the Government of the State to run its affairs till the issues are finally decided and settled. Therefore, none of the provisions of the Constitution of India dealt with the State of Jammu and Kashmir, except Article 370.
Under this provision President was given the power to apply provisions of the Constitution of India with “exceptions” and “modifications” in view of the conditions prevailing in the State.
3. That after the entire Constitution of India was made applicable to all the territories comprised in Union of India, the President of India exercising his powers under Article 370 passed the Ist. Constitutional Application Order i.e. “The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950”. After the said order there was an agreement between various leaders of the Union and Kashmir State which came to be known as Delhi Agreement, 1952. It was followed by the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954. It is under this order that Article 35A came to be incorporated in the Application Order for the State. There have been series of Constitutional Application Orders, last being in 1994.
All these Application Orders have been “modifying” or providing “exceptions” to various provisions of the Constitution of India in their application to the State and new Articles have been incorporated which otherwise did not find place in the Constitution of India. All these Constitutional Application Orders have been made by the President in accordance with the mechanism provided by Article 370.
4. That a bare perusal of the Constitutional Application Orders and the Constitution of India would show that these Constitutional Application Orders deal with following subject matter:
i) Enhancing the jurisdiction of the Parliament to enact laws in the State of Jammu and Kashmir out of the Union List.
ii) Laws relating to increase or diminish in the area of the State.
iii) Making provisions for the return of the permanent residents of the State who migrated to the territories included in Pakistan under permit for settlement.
iv) Providing for constitutional protection to the laws relating to permanent residents of the State, their special rights and privileges, employment under the Government, acquisition of immoveable property, settlement in the State, scholarships.
v) Earmarking the number of seats in the House of People, excluding the area under the occupation of Pakistan.
vi) Provision for delimitation of Parliament Constituencies.
vii) Transfer of Judges from the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir or to the said Court.
viii) Exclusion of the State List.
ix) Provision as regards the decision effecting the disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
x) Acquisition and requisition of immoveable property on behalf of and at the expense of the Union.
xi) Provision relating to use of official language of the Union and in the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
xii) Provision for proclamation of emergency.
xiii) Provision for non-application of the amendments carried out by Parliament of India in the Constitution of India.
xiv) Provision for Governor and Election Commission.
Similarly “modifications” and “exceptions” have been made in various Legislative Entries.
All these modifications, exceptions, amendments signify the special position of the State and the basis thereof.
It is in this context that the issue as to whether President can incorporate a new Article like 35A in the Constitution Application Order has to be answered.
The power of the President in so far as “exceptions”, “modifications”, “amendments” in the Constitutional Application Order are concerned, has been debated before this Hon’ble court in several cases. The court in all the cases has consistently held that the President has unlimited powers of amendment. These would include the power to “modify” any pre-existing provision of the Constitution of India in its application to the State. This would also include the “exceptions” which the President may make in the Application Order. This would also include making of a “new Article” in the Application Order for the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
In other words it is the President of India who makes Constitutional Provisions for the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This power has been conferred on the President keeping in view the conditions in the State and limited and conditional nature of the accession and its conditional acceptance.
The writ petition proceeds on erroneous basis and completely ignores the constitutional development and the historical processes of the State.
5. That the interveners seek the dismissal of the writ petition on the following premises:
i) That the State of Jammu and Kashmir was declared as an independent sovereign territory under the Treaty of Lahore dated 09.03.1846 followed by Treaty of Amritsar dated 16.03.1846. It was never a part of British India nor it ever acceded to British India. Even after passing of Independence Act, 1947 Kashmir continued to remain independent country as it did not accede to any one of the two dominions and desired to execute a Standstill agreement with both India and Pakistan, which Pakistan accepted and India wanted to have further discussions.
ii) That this position continued till October 26, 1947 when “Instrument of Accession” is shown to have been executed by the “Ruler” and accepted by Governor General of India on 27.10.1947. Both these documents show nature and extent of the accession and the conditions attached to the accession and its acceptance.
iii) That the State of Jammu and Kashmir had its own Constitution called Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1996 (BK) (1939 AD).
iv) That the “Instrument of Accession” became subject matter of serious controversy between the dominions of India and Pakistan in 1947 resulting in a battle in the State during the said period.
v) That the United Nations Organization was approached by Government of India and the Security Council passed several resolutions.
vi) That between 1947 to 1950 Union of India was making its Constitution after having become an independent country. In view of uncertain, peculiar position of the State and the limited nature of accession, ground position and United Nations Resolutions, special provision was incorporated in the Constitution of India empowering the President of India to make Constitution for the State.
vii) That the President of India notified various Constitutional Application Orders making “modifications” and “exceptions” including amendments in the Constitutional Application Orders.
viii) That the State of Jammu and Kashmir made its own separate Constitution.
ix) That in its relationship i.e. between Union of India and State of Jammu and Kashmir special position was carved out for the State in the Constitution and in the Application of Constitutional provisions.
x) That Article 35A is a part of the Constitutional Application Order of 1954 and has been made by President of India, who alone is competent, and not the Parliament or Union Executive, to make Constitution for the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
xi) That the power to modify includes power to amend and incorporate new Constitutional provisions in the Application Orders in view of the conditions prevailing in the State. The power has been conferred on the President with a purpose.
xii) That all the Constitutional Application Orders, kind of “exceptions” and “modifications” they contain clearly establish that the State of Jammu and Kashmir is not and cannot be treated or equated with any other State of the Indian Union. The position of the State continues to be indefinite, uncertain and unsettled.
xiii) That Government of India Act, 1935 did not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the State under the said Act never became part of British India. The conditions of accession provided under Section 5 and 6 of the said Act were never fulfilled by Kashmir State.
xiv) That 26th Constitutional Amendment carried out in the Constitution of India with regard to Article 366 (22) does not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Any change made in the said provision is inconsequential.
xv) That the issue as to whether President of India can make a new Article, so far as State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, principle has already been established by this Hon’ble court in various decision that the President can amend any provision in the Application Order and the word “modification” has to be given, in the constitutional context, wide interpretation.
Emergence of the State of Jammu and Kashmir:
1. That till March 16, 1846 State of Jammu and Kashmir was not in the shape as it is at present. Under the Treaty of Amritsar, 1846 the British Government transferred all the hilly, mountainous country situated to the Eastwards of the River Indus and the Westward of River Ravi including Chamba, which territories had been ceded to the British Government by the Lahore State under the “Treaty of Lahore” dated 09.3.1846. Copy of the Treaty is placed on record as Annexure – I to this application.
The territories thus, mentioned in the Treaty of Amritsar, copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure – II, became the territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the first instance and these territories were comprised within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 1 of the Treaty of Amritsar dated 16.03.1846 reads as under:
“The British Government transfer and makes over for ever, in independent possession, to Maharaja Gulab Singh and the heirs male of his body, all the hilly or the mountainous country, situated to the Eastwards of the River Indus and the Westwards of the River Ravi including Chamba and excluding Lahul, being part of the territories ceded to the British Government by the Lahore State according to the provisions of Article IV of the Treaty of Lahore dated 9.3.1846”.

So far as the authority of the Ruler was concerned, Article 1 of the Treaty itself made it clear that the Ruler will hold for ever in independent possession the territories transferred to him.
2. That prior to the “Treaty of Amritsar” the “Treaty of Lahore” dated 9.3.1846, which was between British Government and the State of Lahore, provided in Article 3 as under:
“The Maharaja ceded to the Hon’ble Company in perpetual sovereignty, all his forts, territories and rights in the doab and country, hill and plain, situated between the Rivers Beas and Satluj.”

In Article 4 the Treaty of Lahore provided as under:
“The British Government having demanded from the Lahore State indemnification for the expenses of the war in addition to the cession of territory prescribed in Article 3, payment of one and a half crore of rupees; and the Lahore Government being unable to pay the whole of the sum at this time or to give security satisfactory to the British Government for its eventual payment; the Maharaja cedes to the Hon’ble Company, in perpetual sovereignty, as equivalent for one Crore of rupees of his forts, territories rights and interests in the hill countries which are situated between the Rivers Beas and Indus including the provinces of Kashmir and Hazara.”

It is the territory which had come to the British Government under “Treaty of Lahore” which were subsequently transferred to Maharaja Gulab Singh by the said Government.
3. That after Maharaja Gulab Singh became the Ruler of the State he became absolute monarch, consolidated his position in all the regions i.e. Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh and North Western frontier areas. He was succeeded by Ranbir Singh and a chain of other Rulers. Finally the throne of the State was ascended by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1925. It is during his Ruler-ship that on April 20, 1927 State Subject Notification No: 1-L/84 was issued. Copy of the said Notification is placed on record as Annexure –III. The Notification defined “state subjects” of the Kashmir State. The Notification dealt with the definition of “state subject”, acquisition of immoveable property, grant of State Scholarship and employment of hereditary subjects in Government service. This Notification was followed by another Notification being Notification No: 13/L dated 27.06.1932, copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure –IV.
4. That after the British Government took over entire administration of the Chartered East India Company it held possession of only such territories as were under the actual administrative, judicial and executive control of the East India Company. It is these territories which came to be known as “British India”. Since Jammu and Kashmir was never under East India Company at any stage, consequently it never became part of “British India”. It continued to enjoy its status as independent Indian State.
5. That the State lies between 32o and 37o N and 73o and 80o E. It covers an area of 84,471 Square Miles.
6. That in 1934 the last Ruler promulgated Regulation No: 1 of Smvt 1991 for the administration of the State. Under the Regulation the Ruler reserved to himself all Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers. It was followed by promulgation of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act on September 7, 1939, copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure -V. It is under this Act that various institutions like Executive, Legislature, Judiciary including Board of Judicial Advisors etc. were created.
7. That when British suzerainty lapsed on 15.08.1947 the Jammu and Kashmir State became “Independent State”.
8. That after British India was created and was controlled and administered by British Government, as a consequence of political developments within British India and urge to share power, the British Parliament enacted Government of India Act, 1935. This Act for the first time made provision for accession of “Indian States” to the “British India”. The provisions were so made keeping in view the ground realities, in particular geographical position of the “British India” and the “Indian States”. The provisions of the Act intended to provide a sort of Federation where the federating unit i.e. Indian States could accede to British India in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
9. That the Ruler of the State of Jammu and Kashmir did not accede at any stage to the British India and in fact after four years of the Act of 1935, Constitutional Act of 1939 was promulgated by the Ruler making Constitution for the State. The provisions of the Act of 1935 did not apply to the “Kashmir State” unless “Instrument of Accession” was executed by the Ruler in favour of the Federation. The State continued to enjoy its independent status and sovereignty.
10. That on account of the political developments after 1944, when it became obvious that independence of British India was about to come, several issues arose with regard to the status of “British India”, its position and that of “Indian States”. Recognizing ground realities, several decisions were taken. Among them the Cabinet Mission recognized the position of the Indian States, that of Rulers and the population. It reportedly resolved that the accession of any “Indian State” would not be acceptable where the Ruler belonged to a different faith than his subjects until accession was put to referendum of the people. There were many other decisions taken by the Cabinet Mission. It was also clearly understood that with the withdrawal of Paramountcy the States would legally become independent and the Ruler would, in exercise of his sovereignty over the State, have the option of acceding to either of the two dominions. In the Indian dominion the accession was to be made under Section 6 of the Government of India Act, 1935 as adopted by Section 9 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947.
Position of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 15.08.1947:
1. That under the Government of India Act, 1935 as adopted and modified by Indian Independence Act, 1947, and in accordance with the Cabinet Mission plan of 1946 Kashmir State could either accede to Pakistan or to India and or to remain as it was, maintaining its independent status. The State did not accede to any of the dominions by 15.08.1947 and continued to maintain its independence. The Ruler signed “Standstill Agreement” with dominion of Pakistan. No such Agreement was concluded between “Kashmir State” and “India”. A copy of the Standstill Agreement is annexed herewith as Annexure –VI.
2. That this position continued till third week of October, 1947 when disturbance occurred within the territories of the State. The Ruler’s own forces were unable to contain the disturbance. To save his life Maharja Hari Singh left Srinagar on 25.10.1947 and went to Jammu. It is under these circumstances the “Instrument of Accession” is said to have been signed by fleeing Maharaja on October 26, 1947, which was responded to by the Governor General of India on October 27, 1947. Instrument of Accession, Letter of Maharaja alongwith Acceptance is placed on record and collectively marked Annexure –VII. In the letter of acceptance the Governor General made the following representation:
“Consistently 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 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 invaders the question of State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.”

3. That the said Instrument of Accession dated October 26, 1947 and its acceptance by Governor General of India dated October 27, 1947 are the first of the documents between “Kashmir State” and “dominion of India” (former British India). No such document was in existence either at the time when Government of India Act of 1935 was enacted and/or prior to it.
Intervention by United Nations:
1. That consequent to the disturbance in Kashmir State, Government of India and Government of Pakistan as also British Government had intense communications between each other as regards the situation. The details of the extensive correspondence between them are reproduced herein below:
i) Telegram dated 26.10.1947 addressed by Government of India to British Government.
ii) Telegram dated 27.10.1947 addressed by Attlee, British Prime Minister through U.K. High Commission to Government of Pakistan.
iii) Telegram dated 28.10.1947 addressed by Nehru to Liaquat Ali Khan.
iv) Telegram dated 29.10.1947 addressed by Government of Pakistan to British Prime Minister.
v) Telegram dated 30.10.1947 addressed by Government of Pakistan to Government of India.
vi) Telegram dated 30.10.1947 addressed by Government of Pakistan to British Government.
vii) Telegram dated 31.10.1947 addressed by Government of India to Government of Pakistan.
viii) Telegram dated 04.11.1947 addressed by Prime Minister of Pakistan to British Government, suggesting Jinnah’s three point peace plan.
ix) Telegram dated 04.11.1947 addressed by Nehru to Liaquat Ali Khan, reiterating Plebiscite pledge.
x) Telegram dated 06.11.1947 addressed by Liaquat Ali Khan to Nehru for reply to Jinnah’s proposal.
xi) Telegram dated 07.11.1947 addressed by U.K. High Commissioner in Karachi to the Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Common Wealth Relations.
xii) Telegram dated 08.11.1947 addressed by Prime Minister of India to Prime Minister of Pakistan.
xiii) Telegram dated 10.11.1947 from Pakistan Prime Minister to Indian Prime Minister inviting him to come to Lahore.
xiv) Telegram dated 13.11.1947 addressed by Prime Minister of India to Prime Minister of Pakistan.
xv) Telegram dated 19.11.1947 from Prime Minister of Pakistan to Prime Minister of India for reference of Kashmir case to United Nations.
xvi) Telegram dated 21.11.1947 addressed by Government of India to Government of Pakistan expressing doubts about United Nations.
xvii) Telegram dated 22.11.1947 addressed by British Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of Pakistan for approach to world court.
xviii) Cable dated 24.11.1947 addressed by Prime Minister of Pakistan to British Prime Minister insisting upon United Nations action.
xix) Telegram dated 12.12.1947 addressed by Prime Minister of India to Prime Minister of Pakistan regarding United Nations.
xx) Telegram dated 16.12.1947 addressed by Prime Minister of Pakistan to Prime Minister of India commenting on Nehru’s views.
xxi) Letter dated 22.12.1947 handed over by Indian Prime Minister to Prime Minister of Pakistan in person in New Delhi.
xxii) Letter dated 31.12.1947 addressed by Prime Minister of Pakistan to Prime Minister of India, charging India and welcoming the reference of dispute to United Nations.
2. That all these correspondences, copies whereof are placed on record as Annexure –VIII, failed to resolve the dispute.
3. That position after 15.08.1947 was that part of State of Jammu and Kashmir came to be controlled by Independent Government of “Azad Jammu and Kashmir” backed by Government of Pakistan and part by Government of India.
4. That finally on 01.01.1948 the representatives of India at the United Nations, P.P. Pillai, sent a letter to the President of Security Council transmitting a telegraphic communication from the Government of India dated 31 December, 1947 lodging a complaint with the Security Council. On 15th Jan. 1948 a letter from Pakistan’s Foreign Minister was delivered to the Secretary General of the United Nations, enclosing therewith three documents constituting Pakistan’s reply to Indian complaint; Pakistan’s complaint against India and Statement of the particulars of the Pakistan’s case with reference to both. After hearing the representatives of both the governments following Resolutions were passed by the Security Council:

i) Resolution adopted at the 229th Meeting of the Security Council on 17.01.1948.
ii) Resolution adopted at the 230th Meeting of the Security Council on 20.01.1948.
iii) Resolution adopted at the 286th Meeting of the Security Council on 21.04.1948.
iv) Resolution adopted at the 312th Meeting of the Security Council on 03.06.1948.
v) UNCIP Resolution of August 13, 1948.
vi) Resolution (S/1196) adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on January 5, 1949.
vii) UNCIP Truce Terms transmitted to the Governments of India and Pakistan by the Commission (S/AC-12/295) dated 2.5.1949.
viii) UNCIP Memorandum on Arbitration dated 26.08.1949 showing the completion of the implementation of Part I of the Resolution of 18 August, 1948 and for implementing Part II for the conclusion of the truce.
ix) Proposal made by M.C. Naughton President of Security Council pursuant to the decision of the Security Council taken at its 457th meeting on 17.12.1949.

These Resolutions and Truce Terms are placed on record as Annexure –IX.

Making of Constitution of India:

1. That when Constituent Assembly for making Constitution of India was convened, no one represented “Kashmir State” in the Assembly till May 27, 1949. It was on October 17, 1949, that Article 306-A was taken up for consideration. It is this Article which later on became Article 370. Herein below deponent reproduces relevant excerpts of the debate in so far as the said Article is concerned:
“The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: The discrimination is due to the special conditions of Kashmir. That particular State is not yet ripe for this kind of integration. It is the hope of everybody here that in due course even Jammu and Kashmir will become ripe for the same sort of integration as has taken place in the case of other States. (Cheers) At present it is no possible to achieve that integration. There are various reasons why this is not possible now, I shall refer again to this a little later.
In the case of the other Indian States or Unions of States there are two or three points which have got to be remembered. They have all accepted the Constitution framed for States in Part I of the new Constitution and those provisions have been adapted so as to suit conditions of Indian States and Unions of States. Secondly, the Centre, that is the Republican Federal Centre will have power to make laws applying in every such State or Union to all Union Concurrent Subjects. Thirdly, a uniformity of relationship has been established between those States and Unions and the Centre. Kashmir’s conditions are, as I have said, special and require special treatment.
I, do not want to take much of the time of the House, but I shall briefly indicate what the special conditions are. In the first place, there has been a war going on within the limits of Jammu and Kashmir State.
There was a cease-fire agreed to at the beginning of this year and that cease-fire is still on. But the conditions in the State are still unusual and abnormal. They have not settled down. It is therefore necessary that the administration of the State should be geared to these unusual conditions until normal life is restored as in the case of the other States.
Part of the State is still in the hands of rebels and enemies.
We are entangled with the United Nations in regard to Jammu and Kashmir and it is not possible to say now when we shall be free from this entanglement. That can take place only when the Kashmir problem is satisfactorily settled.
Again, the Government of India have committed themselves to the people of Kashmir in certain respects. They have committed themselves to the position that an opportunity would be given to the people of the state to decide for themselves whether they will remain with the republic or wish to go out of it. We are also committed to ascertaining this will of the people by means of a plebiscite provided that peaceful and normal conditions are restored and the impartiality of the plebiscite could be guaranteed. We have also agreed that the will of the people, through the instrument of a constituent assembly, will determine the constitution of the State as well as the sphere of Union jurisdiction over the State.
At present, the legislature which was known as the Praja Sabha in the State is dead. Neither that legislature nor a constituent assembly can be convoked or can function until complete peace comes to prevail in that State. We have therefore to deal with the Government of the State which, as represented in its Council of Ministers, reflects the opinion of the largest political party in the State. Till a constituent assembly comes into being, only an interim arrangement is possible and not an arrangement which could at once be brought into line with the arrangement that exists in the case of the other States.
Now, if you remember the viewpoints that I have mentioned, it is an inevitable conclusion that, at the present moment, we could establish only an interim system. Article 306A is an attempt to establish such a system.
I shall now proceed to take the House through the provisions of this article. As honorable Members will remember, the constitution of Indian States is mainly governed by Article 211A of this Constitution which applies the Constitution to Indian States, subject to the modifications contained in Part VI-A read with the Schedule. So far as that provision in concerned, I have already indicated to you that the provisions regarding the Constitution of other States could not at present be applied to Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, clause 91) (a) of this article says that the provisions of Article 211A of this Constitution shall not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Second portion of this article relates to the legislative authority of Parliament over the Jammu and Kashmir State. This governed primarily by the Instrument of Accession. Broadly speaking, that legislative power is confined to the three subjects of defence, foreign affairs and communications but as a matter of fact these broad categories include a number of items which are listed in the Instrument of Accession. I believe they number some twenty to twenty-five. Now, these items have undergone a change in description, in numbering, in arrangement, as amongst themselves, in List I and List III of the new Constitution. It is therefore necessary that the items mentioned in the Instrument of Accession should be brought into line with the changed designations of entries in Lists I and III of the new Constitutions.
So, clause (1) (b) of article 306A says that this listing of the items as per the terms of the new Constitution should be done by the President in consultation with the government of the State.
Clause (b) (ii) refers to possible additions to the List in the Instrument of Accession, and these additions could be made according to the provisions of this article with the concurrence of the government of the State. The idea is that even before the Constituent Assembly meets, it may be necessary in the interests of both the Centre and the State that certain items which are not included in the Instrument of Accession would be appropriately added to the list in the Instrument so that administration, legislation and executive action might be furthered, and as this may happen before the Constituent Assembly meets, the only authority from whom we can get consent for the addition is the Government of the State. That is provided for.
Then, there is the Explanation, which defines what the Government of the State means. The Government of the State is defined both in the Constitution which is now supposed to be in force in the Jammu and Kashmir State as well as in the Proclamation which the Maharaja issued on the 5th March, 1948. The terms of the Proclamation, to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution Act of the State, will prevail over that Constitution Act, and therefore it is that is this Explanation it is the Proclamation which is referred to. Under the terms of that Proclamation the Maharaja constituted an interim popular Government, and he said:-
“I hereby ordain as follows:-
(1) My Council of ministers shall consist of the Prime Minister and such other Ministers as may be appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister. I have by Royal Warrant appointed, Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah as the Prime Minister with effect from the Ist day of March 1948.
He proceeds-
“The Prime Minister and other Ministers would functioning, and so he instituted a kind of responsible Government with a Prime Minister and colleagues who would own collective responsibility for their acts and regard themselves as jointly responsible for all the acts of the Government. Now, that is brought out in this Explanation.
The Honourable Shri K. Santhanam : The Explanation says that the Maharaja will be recognized by the Union instead of by the President.
The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar : Perhaps we may leave it to the Third Reading. As you know the scheme of the Constitution Act is that the Rajpramukh must be recognized by the President. So, this also says that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir should be a persons recognized for the time being by the Union.
As regards the Council of Ministers, this Proclamation set up a system under which this Council was to be established, and viz., that the Maharaja first finds the Prime minister and then on his advice appoints his colleagues, and the Explanation as now amended by me says that whatever Council of Ministers is in being at the time will, along with the Maharaja to whom they are responsible give their concurrence or give their advice on such matters as are referred to them under this article.
Clauses (c) and (d) refer to the provision of the Constitution other than the matters listed in Lists I and III. These various provisions have been divided into certain categories. The first according to this draft is that article 1 of the Constitution will automatically apply. As you know, it describes the territory of India, and includes amongst these territories all the States mentioned in part III, and Jammu and Kashmir is one of the States mentioned in Part III. With regard to the other provisions in the Constitution, these will apply to the Jammu and Kashmir State with such exceptions and modifications as may be decided on when the President issues an order to that effect. That Order can be issued in regard to subjects mentioned in the Instrument of Accession only after consultation with the Government of the State. In regard to other matters, the concurrence of that Government has to be taken.
Now, it not the case, nor is it the intention of the members of the Kashmir Government whom I took the opportunity of consulting before this draft was finalized – it is not their intention that the other provisions of the Constitution are not to apply. Their particular point of view is that these provisions should apply only in case where they can apply the only subject to such modifications or exceptions as the particular conditions of the Jammu and Kashmir State may require. I wish to say no more about that particular point at the present moment.
Then we come to clause (2). You will remember that several of these clauses provide for the concurrence of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir State. Now, these relate particularly to matters which are not mentioned in the Instrument of Accession, and it is one of our commitments to the people and Government of Kashmir that no such additions should be made except with the consent of the Constituent Assembly which may be called in the State for the purpose of framing its Constitution. In other words, what we are committed to is that these additions are matters for the determination of the Constituent Assembly of the State.
Now, you will recall that in some of the clauses of this article we have provided for the concurrence of the Government of the State. The government of the State feel that in view of the commitments already entered into between the State and the Centre, they cannot be regarded as final authorities for the giving of this concurrence, though they are prepared to give it in the interim periods but if they do give this concurrence, this clause provides that concurrence should be placed before the Constituent Assembly when it meets and the Constituent Assembly may take whatever decisions it likes on those matters.
The last clause refers to what may happen later on. We have said article 211A will not apply to the Jammu and Kashmir State. But that cannot be a permanent feature of the Constitution of the State, and hope it will not be. So the provision is made that when the Constituent Assembly of the state has met and taken its decision both on the Constitution for the State and on the range of federal jurisdiction over the State, the President may on the recommendation of that Constituent Assembly issue an order that this article 306A shall either cease to be operative, or shall be operative only subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified by him. But before he issues any order of that kind the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly will be a condition precedent. That explains the whole of this article.
The effect of this article is that the Jammu and Kashmir State which is now a part of India will continue to be a part of India, will be a unit of the future Federal Republic of India and the Union Legislature will get jurisdiction to enact laws on matters specified either in the Instrument of Accession or by later addition with the concurrence of the Government of the State. And steps have to be taken for the purpose of convening a Constituent Assembly in due course which will go into the matters I have already referred to. When it has come to a decision on the different matters it will make a recommendation to the President who will either abrogate article 306A or direct that it shall apply with such modifications and exceptions as the Constituent Assembly may recommend. That, Sir, is briefly a description of the effect of this article, and I hope the House will carry it.”

Relevant Extracts of Constituent Assembly debate are placed on record as Annexure – X.
As a consequence of the aforesaid developments, reasons, circumstances Article 370 was incorporated in the Constitution.
2. That while the Constitution of India was being made and the United Nations had already passed Resolutions, issue arose as to how, pending settlement of the State, Dominion of India, could make constitutional provisions for the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This issue was addressed by the Government of India, in communication dated 21.11.1949. It responded in following terms:

“While the Constitution of India, which, inter alia provides for the relations of existing states to the Government of India was under consideration, it would have been unfair to the Government and the People of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to deny them the opportunity of participating in the discussions of that Constitution. Such participation was not intended and does not, in fact, alter the Government of India’s determination to abide, in the matter of accession, by the freely declared will of the people of the Jammu and Kashmir. Should that will be against the State continuing to be part of India, if and when it comes to express in a constitutional way under conditions to peace and impartiality, the representation of the State in the Indian Parliament would automatically cease and provisions of the Constitution of India that govern the relations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India will also cease to operate.”

Article 370 of the Constitution of India:
1. It is the only Article in the Constitution of India which applies to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and it is through this Article that other provisions of the Constitution of India apply. For the application of other provisions of Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir Presidential Constitutional Application Order is mandatory. In other words which provision of the Constitution of India with what amendments, modifications and exceptions it will apply to the State are matters for the consideration of President of India and he can apply such provisions only with consultation or concurrence of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, depending upon nature of the provision. President of India alone has the jurisdiction to notify the Constitution for the State. It cannot be done by the Parliament or any other authority. Such is the mechanism provided by the Constitution of India itself.
2. That the scope of the said Article of the Constitution has been considered and debated before this Hon’ble court in several decisions. These are:
i) AIR 1956 SC 197
iii) AIR 1959 SC 749
iv) AIR 1961 SC 1519
v) AIR 1970 SC 1118
vi) AIR 1987 SC 1169
3. That having regard to the pronouncements of this Hon’ble court the legal position established is as follows:
i) That in the context of Constitution of India, State of Jammu and Kashmir has a special position under Article 370.
ii) That the President of India has power to apply provisions of Constitution of India with “modifications” and “exceptions” with the concurrence of the Government of the State. The power of the President of India includes power to amend Constitution for purposes of State of Jammu and Kashmir.
iii) That having regard to the constitutional position laws, which distinguish permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir from citizens of India and protect the rights of the permanent residents in the matter of acquisition of property, employment, permanent residency and scholarships, cannot be faulted on any ground whatsoever.
It is, therefore, submitted that the citizens of India, not being permanent residents of the State, cannot under the existing Constitutional position, complain of discrimination in respect of aforesaid matters on any ground whatsoever.
It is too late in the day for the petitioners to question the constitutional provision applied to the State by President of India under Article 370.
4. That apart from the position worked out between the State and the Centre by the Constituent Assembly of India, the United Nations also passed several resolutions between 01.01.1948 to 26.01.1950 which have direct bearing on the constitutional arrangements. The Resolutions of the United Nations have been recognized and accepted by the Constitution of India in Article 253 which has been applied to the State with modifications.
Herein below Article 253 of the Constitution of India in its application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir is reproduced:
“Legislation for giving effect to internal agreements:
Notwithstanding any in the foregoing provision of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any Treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body.
Provided that after the commencement of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order 1954, no decision effecting the disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be made by the Government of India without the consent of the Government of that State.”

This provision virtually invalidated State Constitution adopted on November 17, 1956 which lays down that State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be integral part of the Union of India. Article 152 of the Indian Constitution while defining “status” has also clearly stated that unless the context otherwise requires, the expression “State” {does not include the State of Jammu and Kashmir}
The special position of the State has, therefore, to continue till such time final disposition of the State is settled by the stake holders.
The deponent at this stage also finds it relevant to mention Constitutional position of the State under “State Constitution” of the part under administrative control of Azad Kashmir.
In the “Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir” with regard to the said part in Article 4 it is provided as under:
“Territory of the State:
The territory of the State shall comprise of the territories which on the 15th day of August, 1947 were under the sovereignty and suzerainty of the Ruler of the State.”

Article 48 of the Constitution provides as under:
“Provisions relating to Pakistan occupied territory.
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 47, until the area of the State under the occupation of Pakistan ceases to be so occupied and the people residing in that area elect their representatives:-
(a) 24 seats in the Legislative Assembly shall remain vacant and shall not be taken into account for reckoning the total membership of the Assembly; and
(b) The said area shall be excluded in delimiting the territorial constituencies under Section 48.”

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan also contains a provision in Article 257, which provides as under:
“When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that state.”

Having regard to above it is clearly demonstrated by various constitutional provisions and laws that because of the peculiar position of the State a different kind of constitutional relationship was worked out.
Position post 26th January, 1950:
1. That apart from the developments referred above the Government of India also issued “White Paper on Kashmir, 1948”. The said White Paper also sheds light on the situation in the Kashmir State.
2. That even after the Constitutional frame work was debated and arrived at, the United Nations Security Council continued to deal with “Kashmir Issue” even after 26.01.1950 and till 21.12.1971 as many as 13 Resolutions were passed which are;
i) Resolution adopted by Security Council on 14.03.1950.
ii) Resolution adopted at the 539th meeting of the Security Council on 30.03.1951 reminding that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of people and affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by General Council of the “All J&K National Conference” and any action that assembly might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire state or any part thereof would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.
iii) Resolution adopted at the 566th meeting of the Security Council on 10.11.1951.
iv) Resolution adopted at the 611th meeting of the Security Council on 23.12.1952.
v) Resolution adopted at the 765th meeting of the Security Council on 24.01.1957 reminding the governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolution of 21 April, 1948, 3 June, 1948, 14 March, 1950 and 30 March 1951 and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolution of 13 August, 1948 and 4 Jan. 1949 that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expression through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of United Nations and reaffirming the affirmation in its resolution of 30 March, 1951 and declared that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of “All J&K National Conference” and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire state or any part thereof or action by the Parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the state in accordance with the above principle and also decided to continue its consideration of the dispute.
vi) Resolution adopted at the 774th meeting of the Security Council on 21.02.1957 requesting the President of Security Council to examine any proposal for settling the dispute.
vii) Resolution adopted at the 808th meeting of the Security Council on 02.12.1957.
viii) Resolution adopted at the 1237th meeting of the Security Council on 04.09.1965.
ix) Resolution adopted at the 1238th meeting of the Security Council on 06.09.1965.
x) Resolution adopted at the 1242nd meeting of the Security Council on 20.09.1965.
xi) Resolution adopted at the 1245th meeting of the Security Council on 27.09.1965.
xii) Resolution adopted at the 1251st meeting of the Security Council on 05.11.1965.
xiii) Resolution adopted at the 1621st meeting of the Security Council on 21.12.1971.
Copies of these Resolutions are placed on record and collectively marked as Annexure –XI.
It is a result of these Resolutions that “United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan” (UNMOGIP) continue to be stationed on both sides of Line of Control till implementation of Resolutions.
3. That apart from the Resolutions/ communications/ debates, declarations at international level also came to be made, as many as seven in number. These are;

i) On 10.01.1966 “Tashkent Declaration” was made.
ii) On 02.07.1972 “Shimla Agreement” was made between Governments of India and Pakistan.
iii) On 21.02.1999 “Lahore Declaration” was made.
iv) On 24.09.2004 “New York Declaration” was made.
v) On 14.09.2005 “New York Declaration” was made.
vi) On 16.09.2006 “Havana Declaration” was made.
vii) On 16.07.2009 “Sharmul Sheikh Joint Statement was made by Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan.
Copies of these declarations are placed on record and collectively marked as Annexure –XII.
4. That even after the Constitutional arrangements had been arrived at between Union of India and State of Jammu and Kashmir, statements were made in the Parliament with regard to Kashmir. These statements were made on 12.02.1951, 26.06.1952, 07.08.1952, 22.02.1954 and 31.03.1955.
5. That Press Conferences and Public Statements were also made after the Constitutional arrangements. These were made by the Prime Minister of India on 16.01.1951, 04.06.1951, 11.06.1951, 09.07.1951, 02.08.1951, 02.01.1952, 07.07.1952, 16.05.1954 and 18.05.1954.
6. That till 1954 only two Constitutional Application Orders were notified by the President of India under Article 370. These were;
i) Constitutional Application Order, 1950, and
ii) Constitutional Application Order, 1954.
7. That on 01.05.1951 Constituent Assembly was convened for framing Constitution for State of Jammu and Kashmir. It continued till 17.11.1956 when it adopted “Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir”.
8. That the Hon’ble High Court also has delivered decisions which are relevant in appreciating the issues involved.
i) AIR 1959 J&K 35 (195 2 SC)
ii) 2002 (2) SLJ 325 (FB)
iii) Judgment delivered in OWP 530/2007 (SARFASI case).
iv) Judgment delivered in Ashok Kumar’s case (Article 16 (4-A).
v) Judgment delivered in Abdul Qayoom Khan’s case.
vi) 1987 JKLR 109.

Copies of these judgments are placed on record as Annexure –XIII.

The net conclusion is that; having regard to the limited nature of accession, its conditional acceptance by the Governor General of India, followed by Resolutions of the United Nations, Special Position of the State under the Constitution of India, Application of various Constitutional Application Orders with “modifications” and “exceptions”, State having its own Constitution, Flag and other Institutions, the continued situation in the State and further Resolutions of the United Nations, Press Statements, Public Speeches, declarations, Agreements, it is the stand of the Bar Association that in the constitutional context the special position of the State has to continue till such time matters are settled.
The writ petitioners seek intervention of this Hon’ble court on matters and issues which are highly complex and essentially political in nature. Previously also similar attempts had been made but this Hon’ble court, in its wisdom, declined to entertain such petitions.
The deponent submits that in order to assist this Hon’ble Court, it will be in the interests of justice if Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Srinagar is also heard in the proceedings as intervener/ or party as the court may consider appropriate. It is on aforesaid grounds that prayer is made.

Deponent

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION NO: 722 OF 2014

In the matter of:

We the citizens .. Petitioners

V e r s u s

Union of India and Anr. .. Respondents

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION SRINAGAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY FOR IMPLEADMENT AS A PARTY/INTERVENOR IN THE AFORESAID PROCEEDINGS.

May it please your Lordships,

On behalf of the applicant it is submitted as under:

1. That a writ petition has been filed before this Hon’ble court being Writ Petition No: 722 of 2014. In the said writ petition the writ petitioners have sought writ seeking declaration to the effect that Article 35-A contained in para (j) of Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 be declared as ultra vires the Constitution and invalid.
2. That the issue raised in the writ petition stands already settled by earlier decisions delivered by this Hon’ble court and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. That nevertheless the issue raised will effect, is likely to effect, permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in respect of employment, Scholarship, acquisition of property etc. It is, therefore, necessary to assist this Hon’ble court in arriving at correct conclusions as regards circumstances, causes, reasons, basis as to why State of Jammu and Kashmir has been provided special position under Constitutional arrangements.
4. That the Bar Association, comprising of practicing advocates, is interested in assisting the Hon’ble court. The advocates representing the Association are the permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and, therefore, are interested in the final outcome of the aforesaid proceedings.
5. That the grounds/ basis/ circumstances as to why State of Jammu and Kashmir has as special position under the Constitution have been spelt out by the Association, broadly, in the separate Affidavit and the annexures appended to the Affidavit. The grounds separately spelt out in the Affidavit be treated as a part of this application.
It is accordingly prayed that Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Srinagar through its Secretary may be impleaded as a party respondent and or be granted leave to intervene in the aforesaid proceedings, as the Hon’ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Hon’ble Court may also pass any other order as it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Applicant

Annexure – I
TREATY OF LAHORE 1846
The Text of the 1846 Treaty of Lahore
Treaty between the British Government and the State of Lahore – 1846:
“Whereas the treaty of amity and concord, which was concluded between the British government and the late Maharajah Runjeet Sing, the ruler of Lahore, in 1809, was broken by the unprovoked aggression, on the British Provinces, of the Sikh army, in December last; and whereas, on that occasion, by the proclamation, dated 13th December, the territories then in the occupation of the Maharajah of Lahore, on the left or British bank of the river Sutlej, were confiscated and annexed to the British Provinces; and since that time hostile operations have been prosecuted by the two Governments; the one against the other, which have resulted in the occupation of Lahore by the British troops; and whereas it has been determined that, upon certain conditions, peace shall be re-established between the two Governments, the following treaty of peace between the Honourable East India Company and Maharajah Dhuleep Sing Bahadoor, and his children, heirs and successors, has been concluded on the part of the Honourable Company by Frederick Currie, Esquire, and Brevet-Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence, by virtue of full powers to that effect vested in them by the Right Hon’ble Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., one of her Britannic Majesty’s Most Hon’ble Privy Council, Governor-General, appointed by the Honourable Company to direct and control all their affairs in the East Indies, and on the part of His Highness Maharajah Dhuleep Sing by Bhaee Ram Sing, Rajah Lal Sing, Sirdar Tej Sing, Sirdar Chuttur Sing Attareewalla, Sirdar Runjore Sing Majeethia, Dewan Deena Nath and Fakeer Nooroodden, vested with full powers and authority on the part of His Highness.
Article 1. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the British Government on the one part and Maharajah Dhuleep Sing, his heirs and successors on the other.
Article 2. The Maharajah of Lahore renounces for himself, his heirs and successors, all claim to, or connection with, the territories lying to the south of the River Sutlej, and engages never to have any concern with those territories or the inhabitants thereof.
Article 3. The Maharajah cedes to the Hon’ble Company, in perpetual sovereignty, all his forts, territories and rights in the Doab or country, hill and plain, situated between the Rivers Beas and Sutlej.
Article 4. The British Government having demanded from the Lahore State, as indemnification for the expenses of the war, in addition to the cession of territory described in Article 3, payment of one and half crore of Rupees, and the Lahore Government being unable to pay the whole of this sum at this time, or to give security satisfactory to the British Government for its eventual payment, the Maharajah cedes to the Honourable Company, in perpetual sovereignty, as equivalent for one crore of Rupees, all his forts, territories, rights and interests in the hill countries, which are situated between the Rivers Beas and Indus, including the Provinces of Cashmere and Hazarah.
Article 5. The Maharajah will pay to the British Government the sum of 60 lakhs of Rupees on or before the ratification of this Treaty.
Article 6. The Maharajah engages to disband the mutinous troops of the Lahore Army, taking from them their arms and His Highness agrees to reorganize the Regular or Aeen Regiments of Infantry upon the system, and according to the Regulations as to pay and allowances, observed in the time of the late Maharajah Runjeet Singh. The Maharajah further engages to pay up all arrears to the soldiers that are discharged, under the provisions of this Article.
Article 7. The Regular Army of the Lahore State shall henceforth be limited to 25 Battalions of Infantry, consisting of 800 bayonets each with twelve thousand Cavalry – this number at no time to be exceeded without the concurrence of the British Government. Should it be necessary at any time – for any special cause – that this force should be increased, the cause shall be fully explained to the British Government, and when the special necessity shall have passed, the regular troops shall be again reduced to the standard specified in the former Clause of this Article.
Article 8. The Maharajah will surrender to the British Government all the guns – thirty-six in number – which have been pointed against the British troops and which, having been placed on the right Bank of the River Sutlej, were not captured at the battle of Subraon.
Article 9. The control of the Rivers Beas and Sutlej, with the continuations of the latter river, commonly called the Gharrah and the Punjnud, to the confluence of the Indus at Mithunkote and the control of the Indus from Mithunkote to the borders of Beloochistan, shall, in respect to tolls and ferries, rest with the British Government. The provisions of this Article shall not interfere with the passage of boats belonging to the Lahore Government on the said rivers, for the purpose of traffic or the conveyance of passengers up and down their course. Regarding the ferries between the two countries respectively, at the several ghats of the said rivers, it is agreed that the British Government, after defraying all the expenses of management and establishments, shall account to the Lahore Government for one-half the net profits of the ferry collections. The provisions of this Article have no reference to the ferries on that part of the River Sutlej which forms the boundary of Bhawulpore and Lahore respectively.
Article 10. If the British Government should, at any time, desire to pass troops through the territories of His Highness the Maharajah, for the protection of the British territories, or those of their Allies, the British troops shall, on such special occasion, due notice being given, be allowed to pass through the Lahore territories. In such case the officers of the Lahore State will afford facilities in providing supplies and boats for the passage of rivers, and the British Government will pay the full price of all such provisions and boats, and will make fair compensation for all private property that may be damaged. The British Government will, moreover, observe all due consideration to the religious feelings of the inhabitants of those tracts through which the army may pass.
Article 11. The Maharajah engages never to take or to retain in his service any British subject – nor the subject of any European or American State – without the consent of the British Government.
Article 12. In consideration of the services rendered by Rajah Golab Sing of Jummoo, to the Lahore State, towards procuring the restoration of the relations of amity between the Lahore and British Governments, the Maharajah i hereby agrees to recognize the Independent sovereignty of Rajah Golab Sing in such territories and districts in the hills as may be made over to the said Rajah Golab Sing, by separate Agreement between himself and the British Government, with the dependencies thereof, which may have been in the Rajah’s possession since the time of the late Maharajah Khurruck Sing, and the British Government, in consideration of the good conduct of Rajah Golab Sing, also agrees to recognize his independence in such territories, and to admit him to the privileges of a separate Treaty with the British Government.
Article 13. In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the Lahore State and Rajah Golab Sing, the same shall be referred to the arbitration of the British Government, and by its decision the Maharajah engages to abide.
Article 14. The limits of the Lahore territories shall not be, at any time, changed without the concurrence of the British Government.
Article 15. The British Government will not exercise any interference in the internal administration of the Lahore State, but in all cases or questions which may be referred to the British Government, the Governor-General will give the aid of his advice and good offices for the furtherance of the interests of the Lahore Government.
Article 16. The subjects of either State shall, on visiting the territories of the other, be on the footing of the subjects of the most favoured nation.
This Treaty consisting of sixteen articles, has been this day settled by Frederick Currie, Esquire, and Brevet-Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence acting under the directions of the Right Hon’ble Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., Governor-General1, on the part of the British Government, and by Bhaee Ram Sing, Rajah Lai Sing, Sirdar Tej Sing, Sirdar Chuttur Sing Attareewalla, Sirdar Runjore Sing Majeethia, Dewan Deena Nath, and Faqueer Noorooddeen, on the part of the Maharajah Dhuieep Sing, and the said Treaty has been this day ratified by the seal of the Right Hon’ble Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., Governor-General, and by that of His Highness Maharajah Dhuieep Sing.
Done at Lahore, this ninth day of March, in year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six; corresponding with the tenth day of Rubbee-ool-awul, 1262 Hijree, and ratified on the same date.
(Sd) H. Hardinge (L.S.)
(Sd) Maharaja Dhuleep Sing (L.S.)
Bhaee Ram Sing (L.S.)
Rajah Lal Sing (L.S.)
Sirdar Tej Sing (L.S.)
Sirdar Chutter Sing Attareewalla (L.S.)
Sirdar Runjore Sing Majeethia (L.S.)
Dewan Deena Nath (L.S.)
Faqueer Noorooddeen (L.S.)”

ANNEXURE – II
TREATY OF AMRITSAR
March 16, 1846
Legal Document No 1
The treaty between the British Government on the one part and Maharajah Gulab Singh of Jammu on the other concluded on the part of the British Government by Frederick Currie, Esq. and Brevet-Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence, acting under the orders of the Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., one of her Britannic Majesty’s most Honorable Privy Council, Governor-General of the possessions of the East India Company, to direct and control all the affairs in the East Indies and by Maharajah Gulab Singh in person – 1846.
Article 1
The British Government transfers and makes over for ever in independent possession to Maharajah Gulab Singh and the heirs male of his body all the hilly or mountainous country with its dependencies situated to the eastward of the River Indus and the westward of the River Ravi including Chamba and excluding Lahol, being part of the territories ceded to the British Government by the Lahore State according to the provisions of Article IV of the Treaty of Lahore, dated 9th March, 1846.
Article 2
The eastern boundary of the tract transferred by the foregoing article to Maharajah Gulab Singh shall be laid down by the Commissioners appointed by the British Government and Maharajah Gulab Singh respectively for that purpose and shall be defined in a separate engagement after survey.
Article 3
In consideration of the transfer made to him and his heirs by the provisions of the foregoing article Maharajah Gulab Singh will pay to the British Government the sum of seventy-five lakhs of rupees (Nanukshahee), fifty lakhs to be paid on or before the 1st October of the current year, A.D., 1846.
Article 4
The limits of territories of Maharajah Gulab Singh shall not be at any time changed without concurrence of the British Government.
Article 5
Maharajah Gulab Singh will refer to the arbitration of the British Government any disputes or question that may arise between himself and the Government of Lahore or any other neighboring State, and will abide by the decision of the British Government.
Article 6
Maharajah Gulab Singh engages for himself and heirs to join, with the whole of his Military Forces, the British troops when employed within the hills or in the territories adjoining his possessions.
Article 7
Maharajah Gulab Singh engages never to take to retain in his service any British subject nor the subject of any European or American State without the consent of the British Government.
Article 8
Maharajah Gulab Singh engages to respect in regard to the territory transferred to him, the provisions of Articles V, VI and VII of the separate Engagement between the British Government and the Lahore Durbar, dated 11th March, 1846.
Article 9
The British Government will give its aid to Maharajah Gulab Singh in protecting his territories from external enemies.
Article 10
Maharajah Gulab Singh acknowledges the supremacy of the British Government and will in token of such supremacy present annually to the British Government one horse, twelve shawl goats of approved breed (six male and six female) and three pairs of Cashmere shawls.
This Treaty of ten articles has been this day settled by Frederick Currie, Esq. and Brever-Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence, acting under directions of the Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hardinge, Governor-General, on the part of the British Government and by Maharajah Gulab Singh in person, and the said Treaty has been this day ratified by the seal of the Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hardinge, Governor-General.
Done at Amritsar the sixteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, corresponding with the seventeenth day of Rubee-ul-Awal (1262 Hijri).
(Signed) H. Hardinge (Seal)
(Signed) F. Currie
(Signed) H. M. Lawrence

ANNEXURE – III
STATE SUBJECT DEFINITION NOTIFICATION
20th April, 1927
Legal Document No 44
No. I-L/84. – The following definition of the term “State Subject” has been sanctioned by his Highness the Maharaja Bahadur (vice Private Secretary’s letter No. 2354, dated the 31st January, 1927 to the Revenue Member of Council) and is hereby promulgated for general information.
The term State Subject means and includes:
Class I. – All persons born and residing within the State before the commencement of the reign of His Highness the late Maharaja Ghulab Singh Sahib Bahadur, and also persons who settled the rein before the commencement of samvat year 1942, and have since been permanently residing therein.
Class II. – All persons other than those belonging to Class I who settled within the State before the close of samvat year 1968, and have since permanently resided and acquired immovable property therein.
Class III. – All persons, other than those belonging to Classes I and II permanently residing within the State, who have acquired under a rayatnama any immovable property therein or WIZO may hereafter acquire such property under an ijazatnama and may execute a rayatnama after ten years continuous residence therein.
Class IV. – Companies which have been registered as such within the State and which, being companies in which the Government are financially interested or as to the economic benefit to the State or to the financial stability of which the Government are satisfied, have by a special order of His Highness been declared to be State subjects.
Note I. – In matters of grants of the State scholarships State lands for agricultural and house building purposes and recruitment to State service, State subjects of Class 1 should receive preference over other classes and those of Class 11, over Class III, subject, however, to the order dated 31st January, 1927 of his Highness the Maharaja Bahadur regarding employment of hereditary State Subjects in Government service.
Note II. – The descendants of the persons who have secured the status of any class of the State Subjects will be entitled to become the State Subject of the same class. For example, if A is declared a State Subject of Class II his sons and grandsons will ipso facto acquire the status of the same Class (II) and not of Class I.
Note III. – The wife or a widow of a State Subject of any class shall acquire the status of her husband as State Subject of the same Class as her husband, so long as she resides in the State and does not leave the State for permanent residence out-side the State.
Note IV. – For the purpose of the interpretation of the term ‘State Subject’ either with reference to any law for the time being in force or otherwise, the definition given in this Notification as mended up to date shall be read as if such amended definition existed in this Notification as originally issued.

ANNEXURE – IV
NOTIFICATION
(Issued by order of His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur dated Srinagar, the 27th June 1932, (14th Har, 1989, published In Government Gazette dated 24th Har, 1989).
No.13L/1989. – Whereas it is necessary to determine the status of Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects in foreign territories and to inform the Government of Foreign States as to the position of their nationals in this state, it is hereby commanded and notified for public information, as follows:
That all emigrants from the Jammu and Kashmir State to foreign territories shall be considered State Subjects and also the descendants of these emigrants born aboard for two generations. Provided that, these nationals of the Jammu and Kashmir State shall not be entitled to claim the internal rights granted to subjects of this State by the laws, unless they fulfill the conditions laid down by those laws and rules for the specific purposes mentioned therein.
The foreign nationals residing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall not acquire the nationality of the Jammu and Kashmir State until after the age of 18 on purchasing immovable property under permission of an ijazatnama and on obtaining a rayatnama after ten years continuous residence in the Jammu and Kashmir State as laid down in Notification No.-I-L. of 1984, dated 20th April, 1927.
Certificates of nationality of the Jammu and Kashmir State may, on application, be granted by the Minister-in Charge of the Political Department in accordance with the provision of section I of this Notification.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR CONSTITUTION ACT, 1939
Legal Document No 65
Whereas it is expedient to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir: we are hereby pleased to enact as follows:
Preamble.
This Act may be cited as the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act of 1966.
This Act shall extend to the whole of the Jammu and Kashmir State and shall come into force at once.
In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context;
“Council” means the Council of Ministers of Jammu and Kashmir referred to in section 7;
“Gazettee” means the Jammu and Kashmir Government Gazette;
“His Highness” means ‘His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur’ of Jammu and Kashmir;
“Official” and “non-official” mean respectively a person who is and a person who is not in the Civil or Military Service of the State, provided that rules under this Act may provide for the holders of such offices or any of them as may be specified in the rules not being treated for purposes of this Act as officials;
“Rules” mean the rules made under this Act; and (f) “State” means the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The territories for the time being vested in His Highness are governed by and in the name of His Highness, and all rights, authority and jurisdiction which appertain or are incidental to the government of such territories are exercisable by His Highness, except in so far as may be others is provided by or under this Act, or as may be otherwise directed by His Highness.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other Act all powers, legislative, executive and judicial, in relation to the State and its government are hereby declared to be and to have always been inherent in and possessed and retained by His Highness and nothing contained in this or any other Act shall affect or be deemed to have affected the right and prerogative of His Highness to make laws, and issue proclamations, orders and ordinances by virtue of his inherent authority.
6. The Executive
Subject always to the provisions of sections 4 and 5 and subject also to such rules of business and allocation of portfolios and such other directions as to consultations with or reports to and confirmation by His Highness on special matters as His Highness may give from time to time by general or special orders in that behalf, the superintendence, direction and control of the civil administration and government of the State shall be vested in the Council.
The Council shall consist of the Prime Minister for the time being and such other Ministers of State as His Highness may appoint by Royal Warrant of appointment. The Prime Minister and the other Minister shall be responsible to His Highness and shall hold office during the pleasure of His Highness. The Prime Minister shall be the President of the Council.
Every person appointed to be a member of the Council shall before entering on the duties of his office make and subscribe before His Highness or any other officer authorised by His Highness in this behalf on oath of allegiance in the form set out in schedule I.
The Prime Minister may with the previous sanction of His Highness make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Council.
His Highness may appoint a person qualified to be appointed a Judge of High Court to be Advocate General for the State subject to such rules as may be made by the Council in this behalf
It shall be the duty of the Advocate General to give advice on such legal matters and to perform such other duties of a legal character as may from time to time be referred or assigned to hind by the Council;
The Advocate General shall be appointed for such period and on such salary or other remuneration and on such terms and conditions of service as Hiss Highness may fix.
Orders end other instruments made and executed in the name of His Highness or of the Council shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by His Highness and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by His Highness or the Council as the case may be.
The Council may make rules not inconsistent with this. Act for the following matters:
the term of office of the nominated members of’ the Praja Sabha and the matter of filling casual vacancies among them;
the conditions under which and the manner in which persons may be nominated as members of the Praja Sabha;
the qualifications of electors, the constitution of constituencies and their territorial extent, the method of election of the members of the Praja Sabha and any matters incidental or ancillary thereto;
the qualifications for being or being chased as members of the Praja Sabha;
the final decision of doubts and disputes as to the validity of an election;
the prevention of corrupt practices at election;
the manner in which rules should be carried into effect;
regulating the course of business and the preservations of order in the Praja Sabha;
prohibiting or regulating the asking of questions on and the discussion of any subject specified in the rules;
fixing the dates and the procedure for the presentation and discussion of the annual financial statement;
fixing the halting and travelling allowances of members of the Praja Sabha for attending meetings of the Praja Sabha or of the Committees hereof;
the duties of Praja Sabha Under-Secretaries;
the duties of the Advocate General; and
generally for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
THE LEGISLATURE
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Legislature of the State shall consist of His Highness and a chamber to be known as the Praja Sabha.
The Praja Sabha shall consist of the President and seventy five other members.
The members of the Council shall be ex-officio members of the Praja Sabha.
Of the remaining members, forty shall be elected! and the rest nominated by His Highness.
Thirty three of the elected members shall represent the communities and the general constituencies shown in schedule II and seven shall represent the special constituencies shown in schedule III.
Of the nominated members referred to in subsection.
fourteen shall represent the areas and communities shown in Schedule IV, and
(b) not more than eight shall be officials.
Rules may be made under clause (c) of section 12 altering the- constituencies and their territorial extent as shown in schedule IV but such rules shall not have effect unless sanctioned by His Highness.
His Highness may for the purpose of any Bill introduced or proposed to be introduced in the Praja Sabha nominate not more than two persons having special knowledge or experience of the subject matter of the Bill, and these persons shall, in relation to the Bill, have, for the period for which they are nominated all the rights of members of the Praja Sabha, and shall be in addition to the members above referred to.
15. (1) Every Praja Sabha shall continue for three years from its first meeting;
Provided that His Highness may:
(a) at any time dissolve that Praja Sabha before the expiry of its term; or
(b) extend the term of the Praja Sabha if in special circumstances he so thinks fit.
(2) His Highness shall appoint a date not more than six months after the date of expiry of the term of the Praja Sabha or of its dissolution for its next session.
(a) there shall be every year at least one session of the Praja Sabha at Jammu and another at Srinagar;
(b) subject to the provisions of this section, His Highness may from time to time.
summon the Praja Sabha at such time and place as he thinks fit; or
prorogue the Praja Sabha; or
(iii) dissolve the Praja Sabha.
16. Communication by His Highness to the Praja Sabha may be made
in person; or
by message sent through the Prime Minister or any other Minister; or
by message sent through the President or any other person presiding under the provisions of section 20.
Communications by the Praja Sabha to His Highness shall be made by formal address submitted through the President after motion made and carried in the Praja Sabha.
The Advocate General shall have the right to speak in the Praja Sabha and to take part in its proceedings and in the Proceedings of any of its committees but shall not, merely by virtue of this section, have a right to vote.
The President of the Praja Sabha shall be appointed by His Highness for such term as he may fix and he may remove the President from office and fill casual vacancies in that office.
(1) The Praja Sabha shall choose one of its members to be the Deputy President thereof and so often as the office of the Deputy President becomes vacant the Praja Sabha shall choose another member to the Deputy President.
The Deputy President shall perform such duties of the President as may be assigned to him by the President with the approval of the Council and shall, during the absence of the President from any sitting of the Praja Sabha, act as President.
(3) During the temporary absence of the President and the Deputy President from a meeting of the Praja Sabha such person shall act as President as His Highness may by general or special order in that behalf direct.
A member holding the office of Deputy President shall vacate his office if he ceases to be a member of the Praja Sabha, may, at any time, resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Prime Minister, and may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Praja Sabha passed by a majority of the members then on the roll of the Praja Sabha.
His Highness may appoint from among the non-official members of the Praja Sabha as many under-Secretaries and for such period not exceeding the life of the Praja Sabha as he may think fit. An under- Secretary shall be attached to one or more ministers and will be assigned such duties in relation to the business coming before the Praja Sabha as may be prescribed by rules in this behalf.
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Praja Sabha may make laws for whole State or any part thereof, and for the subjects of His Highness wherever they may be.
It shall not be lawful for the Praja Sabha to consider or deal with any matter or enact any law relating to or affecting:
His Highness or any member of the Royal Family or the management of the Royal house-hold;
relations, treaties, convention or agreements between the State and His Majesty the King Emperor of India or the Government of India or with Foreign powers or the Government of any State in India now subsisting or in force or hereafter to be established or made;
matters of frontier policy including those relating to Ladakh and Gilgit;
Such matters relating to the Jagirs of Poonch and Chenani as His Highness may specify;
rights specifically granted to Illaqadars or Jagirdars by their sanads;
the organization, discipline and control of the State Forces;
the departments declared by Highness from time to time as Hazure departments;
the Dharmarth Trust;
the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder and their repeal or modification; and
such other matters as may be specified by His Highness from time to time.
25. (1) All questions at any sitting of the Praja Sabha shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting other than the President or person acting as such:
Provided that, in the case of an equality of votes, the President or person acting as such shall exercise a casting vote.
The Praja Sabha shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership thereof and any proceedings in the Praja Sabha shall be valid notwithstanding that it is discovered subsequently that some person who was not entitled so to do sat or voted or otherwise took part in the proceedings.
If at any time during a meeting of the Praja Sabha less than one-fifth of the total number of members are present, it shall be the duty of the President or persons acting as such either to adjourn the Praja Sabha or to suspend the meeting until at least one-fifth of the members are present.
PROVISIONS AS TO MEMBERS OF THE PRAJA SABHA
Every member of the Praja Sabha, other than an ex-officio member, shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe at a meeting of the Praja Sabha before the President or such person as may be authorised by His Highness in this behalf, an oath or affirmation in the form set out in Schedule 1.
(1) If a member of the Praja Sabha,
becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) of the next succeeding section, or
by writing under his hand addressed to the Prime Minister resigns his seat, his seat shall thereupon become vacant.
(2) If for two consecutive sessions of the Praja Sabha a member is without the permission of the President absent from all meetings thereof, the President may declare his seat vacant.
28. (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as or for being a member of the Praja Sabha,
if he is an official; (provided that this shall not apply to the exofficio members or to the officials nominated under section 14, or to the President or to the Deputy President, or to the Under Secretaries appointed under Section 2)
if he is under 25 years of age;
if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court:
if he is an undischarged insolvent or being a dischargedinsolvent has not obtained from a competent Court a certificate that his insolency was caused by misfortune without any misconduct on his part;
if he is a person against whom a conviction by a Criminal Court for an offence punishable a with sentence of imprisonment for a term of six months or more is subsisting or an order binding him to be of good behaviour has been passed or an order of internment or externment passed by a Magistrate or the Council or His Highness is in force, unless a period of five years or such less period as His Highness may allow in any particular case has elapsed since release or the expiry of the period specified in the order;
if he has been convicted or has in proceedings for questioning the validity or regularity of an election, been found guilty of any offense or corrupt or illegal practice relating to elections, which has been declared by any law to be an offense or has been declared by any rule or order of the Council to be a practice entailing disqualification for membership of the Praja Sabha, unless a period of three years has expired from the date of such conviction or finding;
if, having been elected a member of the Praja Sabha, he has failed to lodge a return of election expenses within the time and in the manner required by the rules under this Act, unless a period of three years has expired from the date by which the return ought to have been lodged or His Highness has removed the disqualifications7
A person shall not be capable of being chosen a member of the Praja Sabha while he is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a criminal offense, or is under detention for failure to furnish security for keeping the peace or for good behaviour.
Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of the Praja Sabha there shall be freedom of speech in the Praja Sabha and no member of the Praja Sabha shall be liable to any proceeding in any Court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Praja Sabha or any Committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of the Praja Sabha of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.
The President, the Deputy President and the Under Secretaries of the Praja Sabha shall receive such honoraria as may be determined by His Highness. The members of the Praja Sabha shall be entitled to receive such halting and travelling allowances as may be fixed by rules in this behalf.
LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE
31.
Where a Bill has been passed by the Praja Sabha, the Prime Minister may, instead of presenting it for the assent of His Highness, return it to the Praja Sabha for reconsideration in whole or in part, together with any amendments which he may recommend.
Where a Bill has been passed by the Praja Sabha and has not been returned to it by the Prime Minister for reconsideration it shall be submitted for the assent of His Highness, who may declare either that the assent thereto, or withholds his assent therefrom.
A Bill which is assented to under the last preeeding sub-section shall be published in the Gazette in English and shall then become an Act and have the force of Law.
In all the Regulations in force in the State on the date on which this Act comes into force and in the rules orders, proclamations and notifications issued under such Regulations, the word ‘Act’ shall, unless the context otherwise, requires, be substituted for the word ‘Regulation’.
32. Subject to such restrictions and conditions as are imposed by this Act or may be imposed by rules or standing orders, any member may ask questions; and
move resolutions: provided that no question shall be asked and no resolution shall be moved which affects the religious rights, usages, endowments or personal law of any community and is not asked or moved by a member of that community.
PROCEDURE GENERALLY
33. The business of the Praja Sabha shall be transacted in Urdu but any member may address the Praja Sabha in English.
Provided that the text of all Bills and amendments there to moved in, and of all Acts passed by, the Praja Sabha, which shall be treated as authoritative, shall be in English.
Where the Praja Sabha refuses leave to introduce, or fails to pass in a form recommended by the Council, any Bill, His Highness may declare that the proposed legislation is essential for the good government, safety or tranquility of the State and such Bill shall, on such declaration, become an Act as if it had been passed by the Praja Sabha and assented to by His Highness.
If the Prime Minister at any time certifies that the discussion of a Bill introduced or proposed to be introduced in the Praja Sabha or of any specified clause of a Bill, or of any amendment moved or proposed to be moved to a Bill or of any resolution or of an amendment there to would affect, the safety or tranquility of the State or any part thereof, he may direct that no proceedings, or no further proceedings, shall be taken in relation to the Bill, clause or amendment, or resolution or its amendment, and effect shall be given to the direction.
It shall not be lawful, without the previous sanction of His Highness, to introduce, consider or pass any Bill affecting the religious rights, usages, endowments or personal law of any community, and no such Bill shall be deemed to be passed by the Praja Sabha unless two third of the members of the Praja Sabha from the community affected are present at the meeting of the Praja Sabha and vote in its favour.
No discussion shall be allowed in the Praja Sabha with regard to the conduct of any member of His Highness Board of Judicial Advisers or of any Judge of the High Court in the discharge of his duties.
Notwithstanding anything contained In this Act, the Council may, in case of emergency or where immediate legislation is required in any matter affecting the peace and good government of the State, submit to His Highness an Ordinance and such Ordinance on being assented to His Highness shall have the force of law for a period not exceeding six months from the date of its promulgation.
It shall not be lawful for the Praja Sabha to repeal or alter any ordinance passed under section.
Standing orders may be made and altered by the Praja Sabha providing for the conduct of business and the procedure to be followed in the Praja Sabha. Any standing order which is repugnant to the provisions of this Act or to any rules made thereunder shall to the extent of that repugnancy but not otherwise, be void.
PROCEDURE IN FINANCIAL MATTERS
41. The Council shall in respect of every financial year cause to be laid before the Praja Sabha a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of the State for the year:
Provided that the estimated receipts and expenditure relating to the Jagirs of Poonch and Chenani shall be shown separately in the statement.
42. The estimates of expenditure embodied in the annual financial statement shall show separately: the sums required to meet expenditure described by this Act as expenditure charged upon the revenues of the State; and the sums required to meet other expenditure proposed to be met from the revenues of the State.
43. The following expenditure shall be the expenditure charged on the revenues of the State: expenditure on matters reserved from the cognizance of the Praja Sabha under section 24; contributions payable to other Governments expenditure obligatory under any law interest on loans and sinking fund charges; expenditure which may be classed by His Highness or the Council as political; pensions and gratuities granted by His Highness or with his sanction or under the rules sanctioned by His Highness or the Council; contributions, grants and scholarships sanctioned by His Highness; salaries of the Judges of the High Court and the members of His Highness Board of Judicial Advisers: salaries of such other officers as His Highness may specify from time to time; and such other expenditure as His Highness may specify from time to time.
Any question whether any proposed expenditure falls within a class of expenditure charged on the revenues of the State shall be decided by the Prime Minister and such decision shall be final.
So much of the estimates of expenditure as relates to the expenditure charged on the revenues of the State shall not be submitted to the vote of the Praja Sabha.
So much of the said estimates as relates to the other expenditure shall be submitted to the Praja Sabha in the form of demands for grants. The Praja Sabha shall have power to assent or to refuse to assent to any demand or to assent to a demand subject to a reduction of the amount specified therein. provided that:
the Council shall have power, in relation to any such demand, to act as if it had been assented to, notwithstanding the withholding of such assent or the reduction of the amount therein specified, if the Council considers that the expenditure provided for by the demand is necessary for the carrying on of any department or for the discharge of the Council’s responsibility for its administration; and
His Highness may in cases of emergency authorise such expenditure as may in his opinion be necessary for the safety or tranquility of the State or any part thereof or for the carrying on of any department.
(3) No demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the Council.
If in respect of any financial year further expenditure from the revenues of the State becomes necessary over and above the expenditure authorised from that year, the Council shall have the power to authorise that expenditure. A statement of the expenditure so authorised shall be presented to the Praja Sabha along with the financial statement for the following year.
(1) A Bill or amendment making provision:
for imposing, increasing or decreasing any tax, or
for regulating the borrowing of money or the giving of any guarantee by the Council or for amending the law with respect to any financial obligation undertaken by the Council, or
for declaring any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the revenues of the State, shall not be introduced or moved except with the previous sanction of the Prime Minister.
A Bill or amendment shall not be deemed to make provision for any of the purposes aforesaid by reason only that it provides for the imposition of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment of fees for licences or fees for services rendered.
A Bill which, if enacted and brought into operation, would involve expenditure from the revenues of the State shall not be passed by the Praja Sabha unless the Council has recommended to the consideration of the Bill.
THE JUDICATURE: THE HIGH COURT 48.
the High Court referred to in this Act is the High Court established in the State by Order No. 1 of 1985 and styled as the High Court of Judicature, Jammu and Kashmir State; and
the High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and two or more other Judges, as His Highness. may from time to time think fit to appoint.
49. Every Judge of the High Court shall be appointed by His Highness and shall hold office until he attains the age of fifty five years, unless His Highness otherwise directs:
Provided that:
a Judge may by resignation under his hand’ addressed to the Prime Minister resign his office;
a Judge may be removed from his office by order of His Highness on the ground of misbehavior or of infirmity of mind or body.
50. The Chief Justice shall have rank and precedence before the other Judges.
All the other Judges shall have rank and precedence according to the seniority of their appointments.
51. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court unless he;
is a barrister of England or Ireland or member of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland of not less than ten years standing; or
has for at least three years held a judicial office in the State not inferior to that of a District Judge; or
has for at least five years held a judicial office in the State or in British India, not inferior to that of a subordinate Judge, or a Judge of a Small Causes Court; or is an Advocate of the High Court or of any High Court in British India, and is a barrister of England or Ireland or a member of the faculty of Advocates in Scotland or a law graduate of any recognised University in India who has been practicing as an Advocate of the High Court or of any High Court in British India for a period of at least ten years.
The Chief Justice and the other Judges of the High Court shall receive such salaries and allowances as His Highness may from time to time fix in this behalf.
Every person appointed to be a Judge of the High Court shall before he enters upon his office make and subscribe His Highness or some person appointed by him an oath according to form set out in that behalf in schedule 1 of this Act.
The High Court of Judicature shall have and use as occasion may require a seal bearing and advice impression of the Jammu and Kashmir Coat of Arms with an exergue or label surrounding the same, with the following inscription, “The seal of the High Court of Judicature, Jammu and Kashmir”. The said seal shall be delivered to and kept in the custody of the Chief Justice or of an officer the Court from time to time nominated by the Chief Justice.
All writs, summonses, precepts, rules order and other mandatory processes to be used by the High Court shall run and be in the name and style of His Highness and shall be sealed with the seal of the High Court.
The High Court is a Court of record.
The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any original civil suit or other proceeding of which the value is not less than rupees ten thousand and every such suit or proceeding shall be instituted in the High Court.
The High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of such appeals, revisions and other cases-civil, criminal or revenue-as it may be empowered to do under any enactment in force in the State.
The usual places of sittings of the High Court shall be Jammu and Kashmir (Srinagar) and His Highness may by order direct for what period the High Court sit at each such place.
Whenever it appears to the Chief Justice convenient that the jurisdiction and power vested in the High Court by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force should be exercised in any place within the jurisdiction of any court subject to the superintendence of the High Court, other than the usual places of sitting of the High Court, or at several such places by way of circuit, one or more Judges of the High Court shall with the previous sanction of His Highness hold Court at such place or places.
Except as provided by any enactment of the time being in force, all original proceedings and suits shall be heard and decided by a single Judge of the High Court.
60. Except as otherwise provided by any enactment for the time being in force and subject to any rules made in this behalf, the Jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature may be exercised by a single Judge of the Court or by a bench of two or more Judges of the Court.
Except as otherwise provided by any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal from any original decree or from any order against which an appeal is permitted by any law for the time being in force passed or made by a single Judge of the High Court shall lie to a bench consisting of two other Judges of the High Court.
Unless such appeal is prohibited by any enactment for the time being in force an appeal from an appellate decree made by a single Judge of the High Court shall lie to a bench consisting of two other Judges of the High Court, where the Judge who passed decree declares that the case is a fit one for appeal.
The Chief Justice shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, determine which Judge in each case will sit alone and which Judge of the Court will constitute a bench.
When there is a difference of opinion among the Judges composing any bench of the High Court, the decision shall be in accordance with the opinion.. Of the majority of the Judges.
If there is no such majority, then
if the bench is a full bench, the decision shall be in accordance with the decision of the Senior Judge, and
in other cases the bench before which the difference has arisen shall either refer the question or the whole case for decision to a full bench.
63. Any single Judge, and any bench of two Judges of the High Court, not being a full bench may, in any case, refer for the decision of a full bench any question of law, or custom having the force of law, or of the construction of any document, or of the admissibly or any evidence, arising before such single Judge or bench and shall dispose of the case in accordance with the decision of the full bench.
Any Judge of the High Court may, if he thinks fit, refer any appeal or application coming before him for hearing as a single Judge to a bench of two Judges for decision.
64. Subject to such rules and regulations as His Highness may make, the High Court shall have superintendence and control over all Courts for the time being subject to its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, and all such Courts shall be subordinate to the High Court.
The Chief Justice, or a Judge of the High Court authorised by him in this behalf, shall from time to time visit and inspect the proceedings of the Courts subordinate to the High Court and shall give such directions in matter not provided for bylaw as may be necessary to secure the due administration of justice.
65. The High Court may, subject to the sanction of the Council and on such terms as to salary, allowances, promotion, leave, suspension and dismissal, as may be sanctioned by the Council, appoint a Registrar and a Deputy Registrar.
The High Court may delegate to the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar or both such judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative powers as it may deem fit.
The High Court shall comply with such requisitions, as may, from time to time, be made under the commands of His Highness for records, returns and statements in such form or manner as His Highness may require;
(1) The High Court may, consistently with the laws for the time being in force, make rules:
to regulate the practice of the Court;
to regulate the practice of the Courts subordinate thereto,
to provide for the forms to be used in the High Court and the Courts subordinate thereto for such proceedings, books, entries, statistics, and accounts as it thinks fit;
to provide for the inspection of Courts subordinate thereto and the supervision of the work thereof;
to regulate all such matters as it may think fit with a view to promote the efficiency of the judicial and ministerial officers of the High Court and of the Courts subordinate thereto, and the maintaining of proper discipline among those officers; and
prescribing the qualifications for and admission of persons to the Advocates, Vakils and Attorneys-at-law of the High Court and providing for the removal or suspension from practice, on reasonable cause, of the said Advocates, Vakils and Attorneys-at-law
(2) Such rules shall be made with approval of a majority of tile Judges of the Court and the sanction of the Council.
The High Court shall have the power to approve, admit and enroll such and so many Advocates, Vakils, and Attorneys-at-law, as it may deem fit.
The High Court shall have the poker to punish with fine not exceeding rupees one thousand or with simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or with both any person who is guilty of contempt in relation to itself or to any Court subordinate to it; Provided that the High Court shall not take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it when such contempt is an offense punishable under the Ranbir Penal Code.
Notwithstanding anything provided in any enactment to the contrary, no Judge of the High Court sitting in a full bench thereof shall, by reason of his having: decided or otherwise dealt with any case, be barred from hearing and deciding the case.
HIS HIGHNESS’ BOARD OF JUDICIAL ADVISERS
71. His Highness may appoint a Board of Judicial Advisers to advise him for the disposal of such civil and criminal appeals as may, under the law for the time being in force, lie to His Highness from the decisions of the High Court, and on such other matters as His Highness may choose to refer to such Board for advice.
Such Board shall – be composed of as many members as His Highness may from time to time determine and such members shall be appointed by His Highness for such period and no such terms as to salary and other conditions of service as His Highness may consider proper.
Every person appointed to be a member of the Board shall, before he enters upon his office, make and subscribe before His Highness or some person appointed by him an oath according to the form set out in that behalf in Schedule 1 of this Act.
His Highness may appoint any person as an ex-officio member of the Board of Judicial Advisers to discharge the functions of the Board during the period such Board is not in session, provided that Such ex-officio member shall not sit on the bench of the Board for hearing any appeal or other matter as is referred to such Board for advice.
His Highness may make rules regulating the procedure regarding the filing of appeals to His Highness, the place or places and the period of sittings of the Board of Judicial Advisers and the hearing as such appeals and other matter as are referred to the Board for advice.
The Board may, from time to time with the sanction of His Highness, add to, alter or amend the rules of procedure in such manners as they think fit.
ROYAL PREROGATIVE
72. Nothing herein contained and nothing contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, shall be deemed to affect in any way or derogate from the inherent power and prerogative of His Highness or to affect in any way his prerogative of mercy and pardon, or his power of remitting, commuting or reducing sentences conditionally or otherwise.
GENERAL CONSTITUENCIES
S. No.
(1) Name of Constituency
(2) Extent of Constituency
(3) No. of Members
(A) MUSLIM
1 Jammu City Muslim The City of Jammu 1
2 Jammu Rural Muslim The wazarat of Jammu excluding Jammu City 1
3 Udhampur Muslim The Wazarat of Udhampur 1
4 Reasi Muslim The Wazarat of Reasi 1
5 Kathua Muslim The Wazarat of Kathua 1
6 Mirpur-Kotli The Tehsils of Mirpur and Kotli 1
7 Bhimber The Tehsil of Bhimber 1
8 Haveli-Mandhar The Tehsils of Haveli and Mendhar, Jagir Poonch. 1
9 Bagh Sudhnuti The Tehsils of Bagh and Sudhnuti, Jagir Poonch 1
10 Amirakadal Ward No. 1 Srinagar City 1
11 Rainawari-Mahrajganj Ward Nos. 5,6 and 8 Srinagar City. 1
12 Fateh Kadal – Tankipura Ward Nos. 2 and 3 Srinagar City. 1
13 Shah Hamdan Ward No. 4 Srinagar City 1
14 Tashwan Ward No. 7 Srinagar City 1
15 Awantipur The Tehsils of Srinagar excluding Srinagar City, and Pulwama. 1
16 Anantnag The Tehsil of Anantnag 1
17 Kulgam The Tehsil of Kulgam 1
18 Handwara Uttarmachipura Tehsil 1
19 Badgam Sri Pratapsinghpura Tehsil 1
20 Baramulla The Tehsil of Baramulla 1
21 Muzaffarabad The Wazarat of Muzaffarabad 1
(B) HINDU
22 Jammu City North Ward Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Jammu City 1
23 Jammu City South Ward Nos. 4,5,6 and 7 Jammu City 1
24 Jammu Rural The Wazarat of Jammu, excluding Jammu City 1
25 Udhampur Hindu The Wazarat of Udhampur 1
26 Reasi Hindu The Wazarat of Reasi 1
27 Kathua Hindu The Wazarat of Kathua 1
28 Mirpur Hindu The Wazarat of Mirpur 1
29 Srinagar South Ward Nos. 1,2 and 3 Srinagar City 1
30 Srinagar North Wards Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 Srinagar City 1
31 Kashmir Hindu The Wazarats of Kashmir North, Kashmir South (excluding Srinagar City and Muzaffarabad) 1
(C) SIKH
32 Mirpur-Poonch Sikh The Wazarat of Mirpur and jagir of Poonch 1
33 West Kashmir Sikh The Wazarat of Muzaffarabad and Tehsil Uttarmachipura and Baramulla
SPECIAL CONSTITUENCIES
S. No.
(1) Name of Constituency
(2) Extent of Constituency
(3) No. of Members
TAZIMI SARDARS
1 Jammu Province including Chenani and Poonch Jagirs. 1
2 Kashmir Province including Frontier Districts. 1
(B) JAGIRDARS, MUAFIDARS, MUKKARARIDARS
Holding a Jagir, Muafior Mukkarari from the State on not less than Rs. 500 per annum.
3 Jammu Province including Chenani and Poonch Jagirs. 1
4 Kashmir Province including Frontier Districts. 1
(C) LANDHOLDERS
Owing land assessed to Land Revenue of not less than Rs.250 per annum.
5 Jammu Province including Chenani and Poonch Jagirs. 1
6 Kashmir Province including Frontier Districts. 1
(D) PENSIONERS
Receiving Rs. 100 or more as person per month.
7 Jammu and Kashmir State. 1
AREAS FOR WHICH MEMBERS SHALL BE NOMINATED
S. No.
(1) AREAS
(2) COMMUNITY
(3) No. of Members
1 Ladakh Wazarat Buddhist 2
2 Skardu Tebsil Muslim 1
3 Kargil Tehsil Muslim 1
4 Gilgit Wazarat Muslim 1
5 North Kashmir Wazarat Muslim 1
6 South Kashmir Wazarat Muslim 1
7 Muzaffarabad Wazarat Muslim 1
8 Jammu Wazarat Hindu 1
9 Udhampur Wazarat Hindu 1
10 Srinagar City Hindu other than Kashmiri Pandit 1
11 Poonch Jagir Hindu 1
12 Chenani Jagir Hindu 1
13 Wazarat Jammu, Udhampur, Reasi, Kathua, Sikh Kashmir South and Sri Pratapsinghpura Sikh 1
Historical Documents

STANDSTILL AGREEMENT WITH INDIA AND PAKISTAN, AUGUST 12 1947
Identical telegrams were sent by the Prime Minister of Kashmir to Dominions of India and Pakistan on August 12 1947. The text is as follows:
“Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill Agreements with India (Pakistan) on all matters on which these exist at present moment with outgoing British India Government. It is suggested that existing arrangements should continue pending settlement of details.
Reply from Government of Pakistan sent on August 15 1947.
“Your telegram of the 12th. The Government of Pakistan agree to have a Standstill Agreement and Kashmir for the continuance of the existing arrangements pending settlement of details and formal execution.
Reply from Government of India:
“Government of India would be glad if you or some other Minister duly authorised in this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between Kashmir Government and India dominion. Early action desirable to maintain intact existing agreements and administrative arrangements.”
The representative of Kashmir did not visit Delhi and no Standstill Agreement was concluded between the State and the Dominion of India.
Strategic Analysis, New Delhi, October, 2001

Maharaja’s Accession Offer to India
Legal Document No 112
Text of letter dated October 26, 1947 from Sri Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir to Lord Mountbatten the Governor-General of India.

My dear Lord Mountbatten,

I have to inform your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request immediate assistance of your Government.
As your Excellency is aware the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to the Dominion of India or to Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous to both the Dominions. It has vital economical end cultural links with both of them. Besides my State has a common boundary with the Soviet Republic and China. In their external relations and 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 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 Agreement. The Dominion of India desired further discussions with representatives of my Government. l could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. In fact the Pakistan Government are operating Post and Telegraph system inside the State.
Though we have got a Standstill Agreement with the Pakistan Government permitted 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 infliter into the State at first in Poonch and then in Sialkot and finally in mass area adjoining Hazara District on the Ramkot 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 the several points simultaneously, that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and property and looting. The Mohara power-house which supplies the electric current to the whole of Srinagar has been burnt. The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped and 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 first step to over running the whole State.
The mass infiltration tribesman drawn from the distant areas of the North-West Frontier coming regularly in motor trucks using Mansehra-Muzaffarabad Road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons cannot possibly be done without the knowing of the Provincial Government of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. In spite of repeated requests made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or stop them from coming to my State. The Pakistan Radio even put out a story that a Provisional Government has been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State both the Muslims generally have taken no part at all.
With the conditions obtaining at present in my State and to great emergency of the situation as it exists, I hay” 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 Domination 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 my people to fee-booters. On this basis no civilized Government can exist or be maintained. The alternative I will never allow to happen as long as I am 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 ask Shaikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister.
If my State has to be saved immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. Menon is fully aware of the situation and he will explain to you, if further explanation is needed.
In haste and with kindest regards.

Yours Sincerely

Hari Singh
The Palace, Jammu
26th October, 1947.

Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir State dated 26 October, 1947.
Legal Document No 113
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
1. 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.

Reply from Lord Mountbatten to Maharajah Sir Hari Singh
27 October, 1947
“My dear Maharaja Sahib,
Your Highness’ letter dated 26 October has been delivered to me by Mr. 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 India. Consistently with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question if 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 her 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 l note with satisfaction that your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.
Yours Sincerely,
(Sd- Mountbatten of Burma.”

NEHRU’S CABLE TO ATTLEE ON KASHMIR
Text of telegram dated October 26, 1947 from Jawaharlal Nehru to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee.
“For Prime Minister United Kingdom from Prime Minister India.
A grave situation has developed in the State of Kashmir. Large numbers of Afridis and other tribesmen from Frontier have invaded State territory, occupied several towns and massacred Urge numbers of non-Muslims. According to our information tribesmen have been equipped with motor transport and also with automatic weapons and have passed through Pakistan territory. Latest news is that the invaders are proceeding up the Jhelum valley road towards the valley of Kashmir.
2. 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.
3. I should like to make it clear that question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way 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 imperiling integrity of its territory.
4. I have thought it desirable to inform you of situation because of its threat of intentionally complications.

ATTLEE’S PLEA FOR RESTRAINT
Text of Attlee’s message to the Pakistan Prime Minister, communicated by the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in Karachi in a memorandum dated October 27, 1947.
“I have received message from Prime Minister of India that grave situation has developed in Kashmir. That tribesmen equipped with motor transport and automatic weapons entered Kashmir territory through Pakistan. That they have occupied several towns and have killed large numbers of non-Muslims, and that they are advancing on Srinagar. Mr. Nehru says that Government of India have received urgent appeal for assis¬tance from Kashmir Government and that they are considering this appeal. He adds that he would like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India.
I have sent Mr. Nehru a reply saying that we have received no con-firmed reports of the scale and importance of any incursions there may have been and begging him not to let his answer to this appeal take the form of armed intervention by the forces of India. I would also appeal to you to do everything possible to prevent armed intervention in Kashmir by Muslims from Pakistan, or by tribesmen seeking to pass through Pakistan-administered territory on their way to Kashmir. I hope that it will be possible for you to use your influence with any such who have already entered Kashmir to return home, I am informing Mr. Nehru that I am making this appeal to you.
I also suggest for your consideration, as I am suggesting to Mr. Nehru, that it might be most useful step towards settlement of difficult question of Kashmir’s future if it could be discussed by you, Mr. Nehru, and Maharaja of Kashmir at a meeting to be held as soon as possible at some suitable place.”

NEHRU’S “STOP RAIDERS” APPEAL TO PAKISTAN
Text of telegram dated October, 28, 1947 from Nehru to Liaquat Ali Khan.
“For Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan from Jawaharlal Nehru.
I have communicated to you text of telegram I sent to Prime Minister, United Kingdom, regarding Kashmir situation, I have also sent you text of correspondence between Governor-General, India, and Maharaja of Kashmir regarding accession of Kashmir State to Indian Union. I have sent a further message to Prime Minister, U.K., informing him of imminent peril of Srinagar and Kashmir from raiders and of action we have taken to give protection to people there. I want to invite your Government’s cooperation in stopping the raiders entering Kashmir territory from Pakistan. These raids have al¬ready resulted in large-scale death and destruction and if they are not stopped immediately will lead to ruin of Kashmir. The consequences of success of such irresponsible raiders anywhere will be far-reaching all over India. Therefore, in interest of both Pakistan and India, such raids must be stopped. As raiders come across Pakistan territory it should be possible to stop them there. I wish to assure you that action Government of India has taken has been forced upon them by circumstances and imminent and grave danger to Srinagar. They have no desire to intervene in affairs of Kashmir State after raiders have been driven away and law and order established. In regard to accession also it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision. Government of India have no desire to impose any decision and will abide by people’s wishes, but those cannot be ascertained till peace and law and order prevail. Protection of Kashmir from armed raids thus becomes first objective and in this we trust we shall have your cooperation.”

PAKISTAN’S VERSION OF CASE FOR ATTLEE
Text of telegram dated October 27, 1947 sent by the Pakistan Prime Minister to the British Prime Minister.
“I thank you for your message communicated by your High Commis¬sioner in Karachi. The position here is that on early morning of 27th i.e. the day after Mr. Nehru telegraphed to you, the India Government sent troops to Kashmir. This is culmination of a series of events which was briefly as follows:-
On October 2nd, and in reply to a remonstrance from Kashmir that Pakistan was not abiding by the Standstill Agreement regarding supply to them by Pakistan of essential commodities, I wired to Prime Minister explaining that failure of these commodities to reach Kashmir was due to dislocation of the communications due to disturbances and assuring him that we would do everything to ensure that Kashmir received its supplies. I also said that we were seriously concerned with the stories that armed Sikhs were infiltrating into Kashmir State and again pressed on him the necessity for representatives of Pakistan and Kashmir jointly to consider questions of supplies to the State and other questions. I received a reply to the effect that as Kashmir Government were dealing with disturbances caused by armed men infiltrating from Pakistan into Kashmir they were so busy that they could not discuss matters in dispute between us but they would do when things settled down. Nevertheless, we sent Shah, Joint Secretary of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to Srinagar to decide things with Kashmir. The Prime Minister, however, refused to have any discussions with him and he had to leave. I also wired denying that armed men were allowed to infiltrate into Kashmir.
Then I telegraphically drew the attention of Kashmir Prime Minister to state of affairs in Poonch and on border of Sialkot District where Muslims were being massacred by State troops. In his reply, dated October 15th, after denying these accusations the Prime Minister proposed that an impartial enquiry be made into whole affair in order to ‘remove misunderstandings and restore cordial relations’ and said that if this proposal were not accepted he had no option but to ask for assistance to withstand the aggressiveness of people on his border. He attributed the raid of which he complained and failure to supply commodities as steps to coerce Kashmir into acceding to Pakistan. I replied on October 18th again denying accusations of raid from Pakistan and pointing a case in which Kashmir troops attacked a village in Pakistan and in an encounter with police killed a Head Constable. I said I was apprehensive that tactics followed in East Punjab of massacring Muslims and then driving them out were to be followed in Kashmir. I protested against threat to call in assistance from outside the only object of which could be to suppress Muslims and to enable Kashmir to accede to India by a coup d’etat In conclusion I agreed to his proposal for an impartial enquiry and asked him to nominate his representative when we would immediately nominate ours.
On October 18th Prime Minister of Kashmir telegraphed me repeating the charges of failure to send supplies according to Standstill Agreement and of allowing armed men to infiltrate into the State. He also complained of articles in Pakistan newspapers and telegrams from private individuals. He drew the conclusion that Pakistan’s attitude was unfriendly, even ‘inimical’ and ended by saying that unless things improved he would be justified ‘in asking for friendly assistance to prevent trespass on funda¬mental rights of State.’
This telegram was also repeated to Governor-General and published in Press. On October 20th the Governor-General telegraphed to the Maharaja, summarising the telegrams between the two Governments and pointing out that threat to call in outside help amounted almost to an ultimatum and showed that real aim of Kashmir Government’s policy ‘is to seek an opportunity to join Indian Union through a coup d’etat”. He endorsed Kashmir Government’s proposal for an enquiry made in their telegram of October 15th and accepted by Pakistan in their telegram of October 18th and said that impartial inquiry as also the proposal of Pakistan Government for a meeting between representatives of two States was an urgent necessity. Finally he invited Maharaja to send his Prime Minister to Karachi to discuss recent developments in a friendly way. No answer was received to this telegram.
There is no doubt that State troops first attacked Muslims of Poonch. Women and children took refuge in Pakistan and burning villages could be seen from our border. There is no doubt that later they set out to massacre Muslims of Jammu. The Brigadier-in-Command of Jammu-Sailkot border admitted to our Brigadier that his orders were to drive out Muslims from a three-mile wide belt and that he was doing this with automatic weapons and mortars. There is no doubt that armed mobs headed by State troops invaded Pakistan on several occasions. After one of these raids 1,760 dead bodies of Muslims were counted near one of our villages. There are now about one lakh of Muslim refugees from Jammu in West Punjab.
The refusal of Kashmir to send a representative to discuss things and to nominate a representative for an impartial enquiry and their failure to reply to Governor-General’s invitation to Prime Minister to come, and their deliberate causing of disturbances in their State by employing their troops to attack Muslims; and the fact that by 9 a.m. on morning of day on which Kashmir’s accession was accepted Indian air-borne troops had landed in Srinagar clearly show the existence of a plan for accession against the will of people possible only by occupation of country by Indian troops. This plan is clear from the start.
Kashmir’s action cannot be based on action of Pathans who infiltrated into Kashmir as they are not reported to have done so till October 22nd and correspondence with State ceased on October 20th. All that could be done short of use of troops which would have violently dis¬turbed Frontier was done to prevent their going to Kashmir.
In these circumstances Government of Pakistan cannot recognise accession of Kashmir to Indian Union achieved as it has been by fraud and: violence.
I welcome your proposal that I, the Prime Minister of India and Maharaja of Kashmir should meet to discuss matters. A meeting for this purpose is being held in Lahore tomorrow attended by Governors-General and Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India and I hope by Maharaja and his Prime Minister. I hope we will reach a satisfactory conclusion.

LIAQUAT’S REPLY TO NEHRU
Text of telegram from Pakistan Prime Minister to the Indian Prime Minister dated October 30, 1947.
“For Pandit Nehru from Liaquat Ali Khan.
I have received your telegrams including that of October 28th to which I reply. The position is that Sikh attacks on Muslims in East Punjab in August greatly inflamed feeling throughout Pakistan and it was only with greatest difficulty that Pathan tribes were presented from entering West Punjab to take revenge on Hindus and Sikhs there. Later when Muslims in Poonch were attacked and those in Jammu massacred by mobs led by Kashmir State forces and when it was evident that there was to be a repetition in Kashmir of what happened in East Punjab it became impossible wholly to prevent tribes from entering that State without using troops who would have created a situation on the Frontier that might well have got out of control.
Your recent action of sending troops to Kashmir on pretext of accession has made things infinitely worse. The whole of the Frontier is stirring and feeling of resentment among tribes is intense. The responsibility for what is happening is entirely yours. There was no trouble in Poonch or Jammu till State troops started killing Muslims. All along Kashmir Government has been in close touch with you. At the same time they ignored or refused our offers of friendly discussions. On October 2nd I suggested that both Pakistan and Kashmir should appoint representatives to discuss supplies to Kashmir and mutual allegations of border raids. The Prime Minister of Kashmir replied he was too busy. When inspite of this we sent Shah, Joint Secretary of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and States, to Kashmir the Prime Minister refused to discuss with him. On October 15th the Prime Minister of Kashmir threatened that unless we agreed to an impartial inquiry into what was happening he would ask for assistance to withstand aggression on his borders. We immediately agreed to an impartial inquiry. Since then no more has been heard from Kashmir of this proposal.
The Pathan raid on Kashmir did not start till October 22nd. It is quite clear, therefore, Kashmir’s plan of asking for Indian troops—and it could hardly have been unilateral—was formed quite independently of this raid and all evidence and action taken shows it was pre-arranged. It would seem rather to have been made after failure of their troops to suppress people of Poonch and in anticipation of reaction which they expected to their massacre of Muslims in Jammu.
I, in my turn, appeal to you to stop the Jammu killings which still continue. Yesterday West Punjab was again invaded by a well-armed mob who after a fight with villagers retreated leaving two Gurkha soldiers in uniform dead behind them. As long as this sort of thing continues, passions are bound to become further inflamed.’’

PAKISTAN’S CABLE TO U.K.
Text of telegram from the Pakistan Prime Minister to the British Prime Minister sent on October 30, 1947.
“Please refer our telegram of yesterday conveying that a meeting attended by Governors-General and Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India was to be held today at Lahore to discuss Kashmir issue. This meeting could not be held owing to unfortunate illness of Mr. Nehru. It is hoped we will be able to hold it on Saturday.
In the meantime resentment among the tribes of North-West Frontier is rapidly growing and a very dangerous situation indeed may arise. To attempt to stop the tribes going to Kashmir now would involve us in a major Frontier war. I have wired to Mr. Nehru to this effect pointing out that tribal movement began as the result of attacks on Poonch Muslims and massacre of Jammu Muslims by the State troops and that the present situation is due to India’s action in sending troops to Kashmir. The killing of Muslims in Jammu and raids by State troops into Pakistan continue. The situation here and in N. W. F. P. is extremely critical.”

NEHRU’S DENIAL OF PAKISTAN CHARGES
Text of telegram dated October 31. 1947 from the Indian Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
“Your telegram No. 368-G. dated October 30th. I have repeatedly expressed to you my sentiments regarding the cycle of retaliation which has plunged West and East Punjab in tragedy. Both in public and private l have condemned atrocities, irrespective of community of perpetrators; Sikh, Hindu or Muslim, if Hindus and Sikhs have killed or driven out Muslims in any part of Kashmir I condemn their action without reserve. I find it impossible, however, to accept either your version of causes and course of attack on Kashmir or baseless suggestion that we have sent troops to Kashmir ‘on pretext of accession’. We are perfectly willing to have all events, during last 15 months investigated to find out what have been basic causes and on whom blame rests. What has happened in Kashmir stands apart and must be judged as such more specially in view of imminent danger of widespread disaster which Kashmir valley has had to face which would have the most far-reaching consequences in regard to relations between India and Pakistan.
2. The Government of India entirely agree that no raids from one territory to another should take place and they must be stopped by all means at our disposal. It is patent that they have had nothing to do even remotely with occurrences in or near Kashmir State till they sent their troops to Srinagar on October 27th. Before accession Kashmir was not our responsibility even though we were greatly interested in its future. We were not consulted by Kashmir Government about any steps they may have taken or any correspondence with you. Our knowledge of what occurred then was derived largely from statements appearing in the Press. From these statements it appears that Kashmir Government’s account is materially different from what you have given and according to them many raids have taken place from West Punjab into Jammu Province. As a matter of fact today a considerable part of Jammu Province has been occupied by raiders from West Punjab These raiders are provided, according to reports, with most modern weapons including flame throwers. In these circumstances it is curious to state that aggression was from Kashmir State.
3. No Impartial person could regard military operations which for weeks have been in progress against Kashmir as other than well-wished, well-planned and the result of most careful preparation. These operations, certainly did not start on October 22nd. What started on October 22nd was raid from North-West Frontier Province. Its timing, ability and speed are more suggestive of a concerted link between the situation which has been in progress on Kashmir’s Western borders than sudden tribal eruption inspired by communal happenings in Punjab, in addition to this we have reliable information that regular Pakistan troops in large numbers were concentrated near the Kashmir border at Kohala as Jammu border and that they were prepared to enter Kashmir in wake raids.
4. You say that all along the Kashmir Government has been in touch with us. You also say that Kashmir’s plan of asking for Indian troops was formed quite independently of recent raids. Indeed you even suggest that request for Indian troops was inspired by us. I repudiate both arguments of alleged fact and Insinuation. Until the Pathan raid started we had no request from Kashmir State for military aid, the question was never considered by us. Some weeks ago we were told by Kashmir Government that essential supplies had been stopped by Pakistan Government and we were requested to send some of these essential supplies. A request was also made for arms which was referred, in common with requests from other States, to our States and Defence Ministries. This was sanctioned but as a matter of fact no arms were supplied to them at all as this matter was not considered very urgent. It was 11 p.m. on October 24th that an urgent and specific request was made to us for the first time for troops to be sent. We considered this on the morning in our Defence Committee and again on 26th morning. In view of eminent peril to valley and possibility of large-scale massacres a decision was arrived at regarding accession and to send air-borne troops the next day the 27th October. You will appreciate that it would have been easy for us to send these troops earlier if we had intended doing so and thus stop the raiders at an early stage of their career along Jhelum Valley road. Both military and other competent opinion has criticised us for being dilatory. At no time did we consider the question of sending troops to Kashmir previous to October 25th. The earlier visits of Kashmir officials were concerned with supplies and no question of giving military help arose.
5. Kashmir’s accession to India was accepted by us at the request of the Maharaja’s Government and the most numerously representative popular organisation in the State which is predominantly Muslim. Even so it was accepted on condition that as soon as the invader has been driven out of Kashmir soil and law and order restored the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either dominion then. Had we desired a pretext either for Kashmir’s accession or sending troops there we should not have waited till large areas of Kashmir and parts of Jammu province had been given to fire and sword and Srinagar itself was in peril of capture by the raiders with all its horrors.
6. I have no doubt that you realise that the raiders from the Frontier Province, or along the Murree road come from Pakistan territory and it is the easiest thing in the world to stop them at the two bridges which connect Pakistan territory to Kashmir. They were not so prevented and their equipment and arms, including artillery and automatic weapons, bear witness to every help being given to them. We are credibly informed that regular officers of the Pakistan Army are advising the raiders. Even now it should be easy for your Government to stop the passage of these raiders or their supplies to Kashmir territory completely.
7. Our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision regarding the future of this State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your Government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.
8. You lay on us the responsibility for what is happening. I should have thought that this could more appropriately and fairly be placed on those who have been attacking and invading. To accuse us of provocation and aggression, now all that we have done is to go to the rescue of people threatened with loss of life, property and honour, is a similar perversion of truth and reason. It gives me no pleasure to write to you in this strain. I am convinced that if Pakistan and India are to live in peace leaders on both sides must have trust in one another and act with understanding and restraint. Mutual mistrust and recrimination can only lead to consequences which would be to the advantage of neither India nor Pakistan. I have done everything possible to think and act in this spirit. It was not possible for me to refuse the request of the Kashmir Government to help them to prevent the raiding bands from committing massacres, arson and loot and ruining Kashmir. I should have thought that it was equally to your advantage to preventions and hence my appeal to you to stop these raids at the source.
9. I have no knowledge of the raid you refer to in Jammu in your last paragraph. I am enquiring about it. We shall certainly do our utmost to stop all raids and | appeal to you to do the same. I understand, however, that there is concentration of Pakistan troops on the Jammu border.”

JINNAH’S THREE-POINT PEACE PLAN
Text of telegram dated November 4, 1947 from the Pakistan Prime Minister, to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
“I thank you for your telegram No. 327 of October 31st and further message of same date regarding situation in Kashmir. The conference which was arranged to be held in Lahore on November 1st did not take place because suddenly on morning of November 1st Lord Mountbatten telephonically informed Governor-Genera! of Pakistan that Pandit Nehru was not well enough to go to Lahore. That, therefore, he alone was coming to attend the meeting of Joint Defence Council of which he is Chairman. That he hoped to take opportunity of meeting the Governor-General of Pakistan. That since he was only a constitutional Governor-General he could not negotiate a settlement.
In this way the idea of a conference has receded into background so far as Indian Dominion is concerned, for, if India Government wanted it the Deputy Prime Minister could have come in place of Pandit Nehru.
The two Governors-General met at Lahore and had not a long discus¬sion on November 1st. The upshot of discussion was that Governor- General, Pakistan, made following proposals to Governor-General, India, for acceptance of India Dominion :—
‘(I) To put an immediate stoppage to fighting the two Governors- General should be authorised and vested with full power by both Dominion Governments to issue a proclamation forthwith giving forty-eight hours’ notice to the two opposing forces to cease fire. Governor-General, Pakistan, has no control over forces of Provisional Government of Kashmir or tribesmen engaged in fighting but he will warn them in clearest terms that if they do not obey order to cease fire immediately the forces of both Dominions will make war on them.
(2) Both forces of India Dominion and tribesmen to withdraw simultaneously and with utmost expedition from Jammu and Kashmir State territory.
(3) With sanction of two Dominion Governments the two Governors-General to be given full powers to restore peace, undertake the adminis¬tration of Jammu and Kashmir State and arrange for plebiscite without delay under their joint control and supervision.’
Lord Mountbatten was requested to place these proposals immediately – before India Dominion and to get their acceptance of them. Governor- General, Pakistan, undertook to do likewise. Governor-General, Pakistan, is still awaiting a reply from Governor-General, India.
On evening of November 2nd, a day after return of Lord Mountbatten to Delhi, Pandit Nehru broadcast what he calls decision of India Government and it is most unfortunate that he should have thought fit to do so in the manner and language he has used. Leaving aside the highly provocative attacks on Pakistan Government, the proposal he has put forward is full of most dangerous potentialities and will not bring peace to Kashmir. As long as forces of India Dominion are on Kashmir soil the struggle of Kashmir people will go on. What India Government call the restoration of law and order is no more than an attempt to oppressive killing-terror and driving out Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir until, like East Punjab and Indian States in East Punjab, the composition of population is entirely changed. Pandit Nehru’s broadcast indicates clearly that India Government intend to complete their occupation of Jammu and Kashmir and get entire control over, its territory under superficial attractive slogan that ultimately the fate of Kashmir will be decided by people of Kashmir. Pandit Nehru has even avoided use of word plebiscite and has spoken of referendum which might mean anything. After India Government have established complete mastery over territory of Jammu and Kashmir the holding of a plebiscite or referendum will be purely a farce.
In the meantime feelings throughout West Pakistan and Tribal terri¬tory are running very high and will soon get beyond all control. After ghastly massacres in East Punjab it is impossible to expect people to witness patiently a tragedy on an equal scale in Jammu and Kashmir. ‘Very little news of Jammu is allowed to reach outside world but situation there is extremely grave. According to our information thousands of Muslims are being massacred every day. In Jammu City itself 90,000 Muslims are bottled up and are in imminent peril of their lives.
The problem is so inflammatory and dangerous that it requires an immediate solution. All this was fully impressed upon Governor-General, India, in talk that Governor-General, Pakistan, had with him. The Pakistan Government are convinced that the only solution which will avoid further bloodshed and bring peace to. Jammu and Kashmir, get a free verdict of people of State, and restore friendly relations between two Dominions is that proposed by Governor-General, Pakistan. Immediate action essential. Every day that passes counts and makes situation more and more dangerously grave. I once more urge you to take immediate action without a moment’s delay or else the consequences will be beyond control and most disastrous having much wider repercussions not only in this sub-continent but throughout world”.

NEHRU’S REITERATION OF PLEBISCITE PLEDGE
Text of telegram dated November 04, 1947 from Nehru to Liaquat Ali Khan.
“Following for Liaquat Ali Khan from Jawaharlal Nehru.
I have received no reply yet from you to my telegram Primin-255 dated October 31st regarding Kashmir.
Reference last paragraph of your telegram No. 368-G dated October 30th, I have enquired from Prime Minister, Kashmir, about alleged raid. His reply sent after investigation is that there was no raid from Kashmir side to West Punjab but there was a raid from West Punjab Side into Jammu Province. This was resisted by villagers and State troops and two Gurkha soldiers were killed in Kashmir territory. Apparently their bodies were dragged away by raiders into West Punjab.
I am informed in Jammu Province the situation is well in hand except in areas under occupation of raiders who are continuing their depredations.
Kashmir Government is protecting Muslims in Jammu and border would be quite safe but for raiders from West Punjab.
I have repeatedly requested you to stop raiders from entering Kashmir territory from Pakistan, both in Jammu Province and along Jhelum valley road. Our information is that these raiders are being helped by high Pakistan officials. Indeed Prime Minister of N. W. F. P. has openly declared that these raiders should be helped. We have definite information that senior officials of Frontier Province are giving every assistance to these raiders. We put it to you that this is not only against your own declaration but also is a breach of international law. We trust that you will take immediate steps and not only stop further raids from coming into Kashmir State territory but order withdrawal of all those who are already in Kashmir State.
We are anxious to restore peaceful conditions in Kashmir and we invite your cooperation again to this end. This can only be done after withdrawal of raiders from State territory. As soon as raiders are withdrawn there would be no necessity for our keeping our troops there.
I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which l made last evening. I have stated our Government’s policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to people of Kashmir. I further stated that we have agreed on impartial international agency like United Nations supervising any referendum.
This principle we are prepared to apply to any State where there is a dispute about accession. If these principles are accepted by your Govern¬ment there should be no difficulty in giving effect to them.”

PAKISTAN’S REQUEST FOR REPLY TO JINNAH’S PROPOSAL
Text of telegram dated November 06, 1947 from Liaquat Ali Khan to Nehru.
“Following for Pandit Nehru from Liaquat Ali Khan.
Your telegram No. Primin-255 dated October 31st, 270 and 285 dated November 4th regarding Kashmir.
In broadcast I made on evening of November 4th I gave a review of Kashmir situation and of events leading up to it. It is hardly necessary for me to go over the whole ground again or reply to your allegations in detail. But l must-say that you are singularly misinformed about position in Jammu and Kashmir. In particular, your account of border incidents in Jammu and of conditions in Jammu is so contrary to facts that I can only conclude that Jammu and Kashmir Government are sedulously keeping truth away from you. Let me repeat that it is the Muslims in Jammu who are being massacred by thousands every day with active assistance of State police and military who are also organising raids into West Punjab. When Kashmir Government made offer of an impartial enquiry into these border incidents we accepted it at once. The Kashmir Government never broached the subject again. Your other allegations and insinuations are equally devoid of foundation and l emphatically repudiate them.
A day before your broadcast indicating policy of your Government, a long discussion took place between Lord Mountbatten and the Quaid-i-Azam as a result of which the following proposals were put before Lord Mountbatten for communication to you and your Government:—
(i) To put an immediate stop to fighting the two Governors- General should be authorised and vested with full powers by both the Dominion Governments to issue a proclamation forth¬with giving 48 hours’ notice to two opposing forces to cease fire. We have no control over forces of provisional Government of Kashmir or tribesmen engaged in fighting but we will warn them in dearest terms that if they do not obey order to cease fire immediately, forces of both Dominions will make war on them.
(ii) Both the forces of Indian Dominion and tribesmen to withdraw simultaneously and with utmost expedition from Jammu and Kashmir State territory.
(iii) With the sanction of two Dominion Governments the two Governors-General to be given full powers to restore peace, undertake administration of Jammu and Kashmir State and arrange for plebiscite without delay under their joint control and supervision.
Lord Mountbatten promised to let me know your Government’s reply to these proposals but we have heard no more about them. Your Government’s policy is vague, I still ask your Government to let me have your reply to our definite proposals.”

BRITISH APPRECIATION OF PAKISTAN PROPOSALS
The text of letter dated November 7, 1947 from the U. K, High Commissioner in Karachi to the Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Common-Wealth Relations.
“The following message has been received from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for communication to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
“Many thanks for your message dated 4th November about Kashmir, No. 376.
2. As indicated in a recent message to the Prime Minister of India, there is unfortunately, a great lack of mutual trust between the Governments of Pakistan and India. The same applies to the majority of their supporters. I am sure that this makes it even more essential that, whatever the difficulties, continuous and constant contact should be retained between the two Governments.
3. I think that the proposal for the solution of the ‘Kashmir trouble put forward in your message makes a promising starting point for discussions. As I understand the broadcast made by the Prime Minister of India on November 2nd, he gave two undertakings which seem to be in conjunction with your own suggestions. First, he under¬took that the Indian Forces would be withdrawn from Kashmir as soon as order is restored. Second, he undertook that the will of the people should be ascertained, and he proposed that this should be done under the authority and supervision of the United Nations. No doubt any consultation of the people will be difficult to carry through. But I cannot believe that Mr. Nehru’s pledges have the sinister implications which you suggest. It seems to me, therefore, that both you and the Prime Minister of India have put forward proposals which, although they differ in form, are based broadly on the same principles.
4. I hope therefore that there is now a starting point for dis-cussions. While I fully recognise that this is difficult matter, not only because of the passions aroused on both sides but from the very nature of the problem of disengaging forces that have begun to fight, I can see little hope for relief of the present grave situation, which might easily become much worse, unless the two Governments do get together and try to reach accord on a mutually agreed plan of action.
5. I am hoping very much that I may have news of a further early meeting between you and the Indian Prime Minister.
6. I was very sorry to hear of your illness. I send you my best wishes for your recovery.
May I ask you to be good enough to transmit this message urgently to the Prime Minister by cypher telegram.”

NEHRU’S COUNTER-PROPOSALS
Text of telegram dated November 8, 1947 from the Prime Minister of India to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
“Your telegram No. 384-G dated the 6th November about Kashmir was received to-day.
2. I regret that I have to disagree completely with your account of what has happened or is happening in Jammu and Kashmir State. We have received and are receiving full information from our own representatives in both Jammu and Srinagar and this convinces, us that your information is wholly wrong.
3. I regret also the tone and the content of your broadcast, of the 4th November regarding Kashmir which indicated no desire to find method or the settlement. It was merely an indictment which has no relation to the fact.
4. In the last paragraph of your telegram you say that Lord Mountbatten promised to let you know the views of the Indian Government to the proposals discussed between the two Governors-General but that you have heard no more about them. On this point there seems to have been a misunderstanding. Lord Mountbatten, on his return from Lahore, gave me full account of his talk with Mr. Jinnah and in parti¬cular of the two important suggestions, which had been discussed, namely:-
(i) the withdrawal of Indian Dominion troops and men from Kashmir and,
(ii) Holding of a plebiscite at the earliest possible date.
As regards the first proposal, Lord Mountbatten told me that Mr. Jinnah desired that withdrawal of the Indian Dominion troops and tribesmen should be made simultaneously but that he (Lord Mountbatten) had pointed out that it was clearly impossible for the Indian troops to withdraw from Kashmir valley until the raiders had left Kashmir soil and law and order had been restored in Kashmir.
Lord Mountbatten had also made it quite clear to Mr. Jinnah that the Government of India had no desire to retain troops in Kashmir for a moment longer than was necessary. As regards the second point, Lord Mountbatten reported that Mr. Jinnah had expressed the views that there was no hope of a fair plebiscite under the present Kashmir authorities. To meet this point Lord Mountbatten had suggested that it should be conducted under the auspices of U. N. O. Mr. Jinnah had put forward the counter¬proposal that two Governors-General should be given plenary powers to settle the matter. Lord Mountbatten had pointed out that it would be constitutionally improper for him to undertake this duty.
5. On the very day that I had this talk with Lord Mountbatten I made a broadcast in which the views of the Government of India on both these proposals were stated plainly and I followed it up with a telegram to you indicating that they might form the basis of discussion at our next talk. It is thus clear beyond any shadow of doubt that we did, in fact, put forward definite proposals as a basis for discussion between us as soon as possible after Lord Mountbatten’s return from Lahore.
6. I would have been glad to explain to you personally at the meeting that had been arranged for to-morrow, the proposals we had put forward and the reasons for our inability to accept the proposals made to Lord Mountbatten by Mr. Jinnah. But since unfortunately you are unable to come, I must let you have my views to uphold them. They are as follows:—
7. As regards your proposals one and two, a number of well-armed raiders have entered Kashmir to accompaniment of massacre, arson and loot. Our troops have been sent there to drive out these raiders and protect Kashmir. So long as these raiders remain there, and law and order have not been established, our troops must discharge their duty. Afterwards they will be withdrawn, as I have already undertaken.
8. The raiders are either under your control or they are not. If they are under your control you should withdraw them and, in any event, stop them coming through Pakistan territory into Kashmir. If they are not under your control and you can do nothing to stop them, then, surely, we are entitled to deal with them as we think best.
9. As regards proposal number three in your telegram of November 6th, we entirely endorse Lord Mountbatten’s view (vide paragraph No. 7 above).
10. It will thus be seen that our proposals which we repeatedly stated are :—(1) that Government of Pakistan should publicly undertake to do their utmost to compel the raiders to withdraw from Kashmir; (2) that Government of India should repeat their declaration, that they will withdraw their troops from Kashmir soil as soon as raiders have withdrawn and law and order are restored; (3) that Governments of India and Pakistan should make a joint request to U.N.O. to undertake a plebiscite in Kashmir at the earliest possible date.
11. The above conclusions relate only to Kashmir, but It is essen¬tial, in order to restore good relations between the two Dominions, that there should be acceptance of principle that, where Ruler of a State does not belong to community to which the majority of his subjects belong, and where the State has not acceded to that Dominion whose majority community is same as State’s, the question whether State has finally acceded to one or other Dominion should be ascertained by reference to the will of people.
12. The Major-General commanding our forces in Jammu and Kashmir has been given the most explicit orders to do everything in his power to ensure that no victimisation of any community is permitted.”

PAK INVITATION TO NEHRU
Text of telegram dated November 10, 1947 from Pakistan Prime Minister to the Indian Prime Minister.
“For Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru from Liaquat Ali Khan.
I have received your telegram No. 304 dated November 8th re-garding Kashmir and have also had an account of your discussions with Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar and Mohammed Ali. I have also seen draft agreement prepared by Lord Ismay, Menon and Mohammed Ali. I agree with you that early settlement of Kashmir question is essential to restore good relations between the two Dominions. Indeed every effort must be made to remove all causes of friction. For this purpose a very early meeting between us is necessary.
If I had been fit enough to travel I should have come to Delhi but, unfortunately, I am still confined to bed. I, therefore, invite you to come to Lahore at an early date convenient to you for a discussion of out-standing questions and hope that you will be able to accept this invitation.”

NEHRU’S TWO TELEGRAMS
Text of two telegrams sent by the Indian Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on November 13, 1947.
1. ‘For Liaquat Ali Khan from Jawaharlal Nehru.
On return from Kashmir I have received your telegram No. 695-G dated November 10th. I am surprised to see reference to some draft agreement. There is no such thing to my knowledge, but some kind of a formula for discussion was placed before me and I was told by Menon that he did not agree with parts of it. Lord Ismay also informed me that he did not think it feasible. When I saw it I made it clear to Mohammed Ali that we could not possibly consider it.
An essential preliminary is complete withdrawal of all raiders and invaders into Kashmir territory from Pakistan. We cannot withdraw our troops from Kashmir, or cease taking precautionary measures, till Kashmir is free from these raids and there is no chance of further attack. Already Kashmir State has suffered greatly. My recent visit to Kashmir brought home to me the urgent necessity of every action, being taken by us to drive away every single raider from State territory. The acts of vandalism that they have committed in Kashmir shocked me beyond measure. No organised authority can permit such savage behaviour in its territory. Hospitals, convents, churches, libraries, shops, in fact every place was ruined and looted. I saw large numbers of Muslim women with their ears torn because ear-rings had been pulled out. The population of Kashmir valley which as you know is chiefly Muslim complained bitterly of this outrageous behaviour and begged us to continue to protect them. We cannot leave them in the lurch.”
2. “News came yesterday of sack and large-scale massacre at Rajori in Jammu Province by these raiders. We are going into these areas in Jammu Province to rid the people of this scourge.
During my stay in Kashmir our military officers placed before me numerous instances indicating the complicity of Pak. Army soldiers in this invasion. I put it to you that the help given by Pakistan authorities to this barbarous raid is an act which must be resented very deeply by us and by the people of Kashmir. In order to clear up these charges against Pakistan authorities and Army, it is desirable from your point of view as well as ours, to have a thorough enquiry into this matter that is what part the North-West Frontier Province Government, or civil officers, or Army of Pakistan have played in helping this raid into Kashmir.
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah is at present the head of the Kashmir administration and anything relating to Kashmir must necessarily have his approval and consent.
I would be glad to meet you to discuss these and other matters but for the next few days I am completely tied up with important meetings of Congress Working Committee and All India Congress Committee; the Constituent Assembly follows immediately after. Our meeting I hope would be helpful, but it can only bear results when all raiders have been driven out of Kashmir and Pakistan Government had declared its firm policy to the exclusion of these raiders away from Kashmir.”

PAKISTAN PROPOSAL FOR REFERENCE OF KASHMIR CASE TO U. N.
The text of telegram dated November 19, 1947 from the Prime Minister of Pakistan to the Prime Minister of India.
“Your telegram PRIMIN-338 dated November 13th regarding Kashmir. If you will see document which you state was placid before you, you will find that it is headed ‘Draft Agreement.’ This draft agreement was prepared by Lord Ismay, Menon and Mohammed Ali and represented conclusions of a solution even though all or any of them might have doubts whether two Governments would accept it. Since you do not agree with it there is nothing more to be said about it.
You have mentioned certain instances of destruction of life and property. No one could condemn them more severely or regret them more than I do. Such acts must be condemned by every right thinking man wherever they occur. But I am pained to see that you appear to have taken no action regarding atrocities which are being perpetrated on Muslims of Jammu and Poonch. I have drawn your attention repeatedly to large-scale massacres of Muslims and to abduction of women. The brutality and cold¬blooded murders and crimes against women of which Dogra troops of Indian Union have been guilty in Jammu and Poonch are of most heinous kind. The thousands of Muslims who are pouring into Pakistan from Jammu and Poonch tell tales of woe too horrid to be repeated. Your Government appears to be completely indifferent to this murder, rape, abduction, loot and arson, the only purpose of which is to liquidate entirely the Muslim population of the State.
I repudiate emphatically the insinuation in your telegram that Pakistan Army authorities are giving help to so-called raiders into Kashmir. On contrary, we have plenty of evidence that soldiers of Indian Union and of States that have acceded to Indian Union have been engaged, in raids into Pakistan territory. l suggest you might appropriately have an enquiry into Conduct of these soldiers.
I notice that you are not prepared to have a discussion until those whom you call raiders have been driven out of Kashmir, and also that anything relating to Kashmir must have approval and consent of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. This is hardly a constructive approach to Kashmir problem. In view of stand you have taken I see no other way to a peaceful, settlement except a reference of whole question to U. N. O. I sent you a copy of Press statement I issued on November 16th in which I have made this proposal. I hope you will agree that in the present circumstances this is only fair and peaceful solution.”

NEHRU’S DOUBTS ABOUT U.N.
Text of telegram dated November 21, 1947 from the Prime Minister of India, to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
1. “Your telegram No. 404. dated November 19th, I have nothing to add to what I have already said regarding the so-called agreement in my telegram, No. 338 dated November 13th. I have been assured by the parties concerned that this was no agreement at all, but the points noted down for discussion.
2. Immediately after accession of Kashmir State to India we were entirely occupied militarily and otherwise in Kashmir valley and we were not in touch with Jammu situation. We came to learn later that two convoys of Muslims had been brutally attacked in Jammu. We took immediate steps to prevent evacuation of Muslims from Jammu and to protect them there. Another convoy had started already but this was guarded by our troops and when this was attacked troops inflicted very heavy casualties on attackers, killing 153 of them and wounding nearly a hundred and capturing. 500 of them. Since then there has been no evacuation, no convoys, and no attacks. We have issued strictest possible instructions to Commander of our Forces that, they should do everything possible to protect Muslims in Jammu and these orders have been carried out with success during last fortnight. We deeply regret the attacks on Muslim convoys early in November and heavy casualties, suffered by them. We should like to point out, however, that no troops of Indian Union have been guilty of offences. I that you attribute to them. They have effectively protected Muslims. It appears that the attacks on Muslim convoys were made chiefly by non- Muslim refugees.
3. Sheikh Abdullah has visited Jammu recently and taken effective steps there to afford safety and security to residents.
4. The Poonch area, according to information available to us, has been overrun by raiders, and garrisons of State troops are mostly isolated and besieged. It is difficult to understand, therefore, how local Muslim population in this area could be victimised by non-Muslims.
5. We are quite sure that the soldiers of Indian Union Forces in Kashmir have afforded protection to Muslims according to strict directions; or have been engaged in fighting raiders.
6. As regards troops of States that have acceded to Indian Union, some of these were sent to Kashmir State but they arrived after attacks on Muslim convoys referred to above. There has been no allegation to our knowledge that they have participated in attack on Muslims and indeed they have not been physically in a position to do so.
7. I should like to draw your attention to certain resolutions passed recently by Indian Congress Committee in Delhi defining the policy to be pursued in regard to migration of population, refugees etc. These resolu¬tions represent generally the policy of our Government.
8. Your statement that we are not prepared to have discussion until raiders have been driven out of Kashmir must be based on some misunder¬standing. We are ready for a discussion at any time. All that I have said; and would repeat, is that a settlement of Kashmir issue cannot take place unless raiders are made to leave Kashmir State territory.
9. I must express my great regret at the remark you have made in your Press statement about Sheikh Abdullah. I regard him as a man of high integrity and patriotism. You know well his great influence in Kashmir. All communities look up to him but more specially and naturally the Muslims of Kashmir. He has faced very difficult situation with remarkable courage and ability. He is now head of Kashmir administration and undoubtedly represents in very large measure the popular will of Kashmir. It would be improper in every way for us not to consult him in any matter relating to Kashmir State.
10. The specific suggestions regarding reference to United Nations in your Press statement are :—
(i) “U. N. O. should immediately appoint representatives in Jammu and Kashmir in order to put a stop to fighting and to repression of Muslims in State”. Since United Nations have no forces at their disposal we do not see how they can put a stop to fighting or to alleged repression of Muslims. This can only be done by an organised military force and is being done by our troops. The fighting would also stop as soon as raiders were made to withdraw and I have repeatedly asked your co-operation in stopping transit and supplies to raiders through Pakistan territory.
(ii) “To set up an impartial administration of the State.” It is not dear to me what U. N. O. can do in the present circumstances in Kashmir till peace and order have been established. We are convinced that Sheikh Abdullah’s administration is based on will of people and is impartial. Anyone who goes to Kashmir and sees things for himself can appreciate this. More¬over we have pledged that so long as our forces are in Kashmir protection of all sections of community will be their first and sacred duty. This duty will be discharged without fear or favour.
(iii) “To undertake the Plebiscite under its direction and control for the purpose of ascertaining the freehand un-fettered will of people of State on question accession.” I have repeatedly stated as soon as the raiders have been driven out of Kashmir or have withdrawn and peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of
United Nations. It is very clear that no such reference to the people can be made when large bodies of raiders are despoiling country and military operations against them are being carried on. By this declaration I stand.
11. I have said enough to reassure you regarding our resolve to protect the Muslim population of Kashmir and of our desire to have people of Kashmir themselves decide their own future under fair and equitable conditions. I would repeat that we are ready for a discussion at any time. But if a discussion is to lead to a settlement, the raiders must be out of Kashmir State. We cannot leave the people of Kashmir unguarded and in the danger of attack. We have pledged our word to protect them.
12. In your Press statement you have said that, you have no. control of the tribesmen engaged in fighting in Kashmir. Even so, it should be possible for you to deny them access to Kashmir through your territory and also to step supplies of commodities like petrol which, prima facie, they could not obtain from any source outside Pakistan. If you have no control over the raiders, and we do not stop and drive them out, then indeed we are reduced to a state of affairs when all Governments cease to function and the raiders, the looters and the killers become masters of the situation. That surely cannot be tolerated by our Government or yours.
13. I did not suggest that Pakistan Army was participating in the raiding officially. We possess, however, incontrovertible evidence that members of the Pakistan Army, whether on leave or deserters, have joined the raiders and that the military equipment which can only have come from Pakistan Army has been in the possession of the raiders.

ATTLEE’S SUGGESTION FOR APPROACH TO WORLD COURT
Telegram from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to the Prime Minister of Pakistan dated November 22, 1947.
“It is difficult for me and my Government to judge whether, by chance, there is any way in which we could be of service in helping towards a solution of the intractable problems produced by the march of events in relation to Kashmir.
2. Although the approach of your Government and that of the India Government is different, there seems to be agreement on both sides that a reference to the people of Kashmir is the right way in which to obtain a decision on the question of final accession to Pakistan or India, although I assume that it is hardly practicable to take this step before the spring. Mr. Nehru suggested in his broadcast of 2nd November, a referendum under international auspices like the United Nations and you also suggested in your statement of 16th November that the United Nations might be asked to appoint representatives to assist in the settlement of the Kashmir problem.
3. I can see great advantages, if it proved practicable for the machinery for consulting people of Kashmir to be devised and administered under the supervision of independent persons acting at the request of, and on behalf of, the two Governments jointly. After full consider¬ation, I am inclined to think that the speediest and most satisfactory way of putting this idea into practice would be to have recourse to one special organ of the United Nations, namely the International Court of justice.
4. Would you like me to take private soundings from the President of the International Court of Justice to find out whether he is of the opinion that it would be practicable and he would be Willing 16 try to get together a small team of international experts, hot connected with India, Pakistan or the United Kingdom, in the event of a joint request being preferred by the Governments of India and Pakistan tot this to be done.
5. I should be delighted to take such a step if you and the Prime Minister of India think it would be helpful. I am sending an identical message to the Prime Minister of India.”

PAKISTAN’S INSISTENCE ON U. N. ACTION
Text of Pakistan Prime Minister’s reply cabled on November 24, 1947 to the British Prime Minister.
“Many thanks for your telegram of November 22nd regarding Kashmir, Your suggestion of having recourse to International Court of justice appears to be based on an inadequate appreciation of realities of situation in Kashmir. You have focused your attention solely on the last process in the solution of the Kashmir question, namely, the holding of a plebiscite and have ignored the essential pre-requisites for a free and unfettered exercise of the will of the people. These are firstly, cessation of fighting and withdrawal of all outside forces, Indian or tribesmen, as well as of large number of armed Sikhs and Rashtriya Sewak Sangh who have entered the State since beginning of trouble; Secondly, the establishment of an impartial interim administration which would put a stop to repression of Muslims and give free and equal opportunity to all political parties in the State. Without these two essential pre-requisites there is no chance of a free verdict of the people of the State on the question of accession.
2. The oft-repeated promises of India Government and Pandit Nehru that they are willing to have a plebiscite in Kashmir are intended to mislead the world. There is no dispute that plebiscite must be held as early as possible to ascertain free will of people of Kashmir. This is not the question in dispute it is axiomatic. The real issue is how this is to be done. You say the question has become intractable. It has been made purposely so by India Government. If India Government is honestly and genuinely desirous of a fair and peaceful settlement of Kashmir question they should immediately agree that fighting must cease and not take shelter behind the slogan that that raiders must be driven out. It is not the so-called raiders but the people of Kashmir who are fighting against heavy odds to end Dogra tyranny and to prevent Kashmir from falling into the hands of India Dominion. The Azad Kashmir forces are almost wholly composed of the sons of the soil and even foreign observers have testified that wherever they have gone they have been welcomed as forces of liberation. We are ready to exercise all our influence on Azad Kashmir forces to stop fighting and to see that any tribesmen with them are not only stopped from fighting but are made to leave Kashmir. These tribesmen, it should be remembered, are the kith and kin of those for whom they are fighting.
3. The India Government are also trying to mislead the world by stating that people of Kashmir asked them through Sheikh Abdullah to send their troops to Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah has been a paid agent of Congress for the last two decades and with the exception of some gangsters whom he has purchased with Congress money he has no following among Muslim masses. It is astonishing that Pandit Nehru, who knows these facts, should proclaim this Quisling to be the acknowledged leader of Muslims of Kashmir.
4. The India Government’s insistence upon the retention of their troops in Kashmir until they have restored law and order to their own satisfaction can only mean that India troops will stay in the State until they have crushed by military force all opposition to their permanent occupation of Kashmir. The methods by which main¬tenance of law and order is used to consolidate an alien rule are well known. The Muslim population of the State has been feeling impact of those methods in full force. The true leaders of Muslims, and politically conscious among them, are, with their families, the special targets of this repression. In spite of protestation of India Government the number of Muslim refugees into Pakistan swells day by day and is now over 200,000 (two hundred thousand). All these refugees bring with them horrible tales of most inhuman atrocities. I repeat that what India Government is after, is permanent occupation of Kashmir and they know they cannot achieve this object until they have changed composition of population by converting Muslim majority into a minority. Behind their high-sounding phrases stands this hideous reality—their elimination and demoralisation of whole population by violent means—and any proposal which fails to tackle this basic fact offers no real solution.
5. The above analysis shows that first, fighting must stop and all outside forces must withdraw and secondly, which is no less essential, that Kashmir Administration must be taken over by an impartial and independent authority immediately. Not until these conditions are fulfilled is there any hope of getting a free plebiscite which, in our opinion, need not wait till the spring.
6. I hope you now realise the actual position, if you would consider these basic facts you will, I hope, support our proposal that U. N. O. should immediately send out a Commission to undertake the tasks outlined in para 5 above. This Commission should have under it an International Police Force to maintain law and order. The composition of this Force can be left to decision of U.N.O. Commission. We, on our part, would be prepared to accept a force drawn solely from Commonwealth.”

NEHRU’S VIEW ON U. N.
Text of telegram dated December 12, 1947 from the Prime Minister of India to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
“Ever since my return from Lahore I have given most earnest thought to settlement of all outstanding matters in dispute between India and Pakistan. My colleagues share my desire for such a settle¬ment which is essential for well-being of both India and Pakistan. It is our good fortune that agreements have already been arrived at in regard to many matters in controversy. But you will appreciate that it is difficult to make any progress if conflict and indifference continue between the two countries. Such a conflict is likely to affect all our other relations and may lead to a deterioration of situation.
2. The major cause of this conflict at present is Kashmir. We have discussed this matter with you at great length without resolving our differences or finding a way out of the impasse. I reiterate the arguments which have been repeatedly advanced in support of our position. You are fully seized of them.
3. We have given further thought, in the light of our discussion in Lahore, to the question of inviting United Nations to advise us in this matter. While we are prepared to invite U. N. O. observers to come here and advise us as to proposed plebiscite, it is not clear in what other capacity the United Nations help can be sought. According to your own declaration to us you are not party to present struggle in Kashmir. We cannot treat with irregular invaders as a State. No Government can deal with such raids which have brought death and destruction to Kashmir except through military means. We owe an obligation to the people of Kashmir to restore peaceful and normal conditions. We have pledged ourselves to this end. We would be glad to cooperate in an attempt to restore peace by settlement.
4. I trust that you will appreciate the logic and reasonableness of our position and our earnest desire to find a solution which is honour-able to all concerned. I hope to meet you when you visit Delhi on December 22nd to attend the next meeting of the Joint Defence Council and to discuss this matter further with you. I confess, however, that I find myself unable to suggest anything beyond what I have offered already, namely, to ask U. N. O. to send impartial observers to advise us regarding the plebiscite.
I hope that your health continues to improve.”

PAKISTAN COMMENTS ON NEHRU’S VIEWS
Text of telegram dated December 16, 1947 from the Prime Minister of Pakistan to the Prime Minister of India.
“Your telegram No. Primin 448 dated 12th December.
As you know, I am most desirous for a settlement of all matters in dispute between India and Pakistan. So are my colleagues. And I agree with you that the major issue outstanding between the two Dominions is Kashmir and, as I pointed out before also, Junagadh. During our discussion in Delhi and Lahore I explained to you how vital a place Kashmir occupies in relation to Pakistan. The security of Pakistan is bound up with that of Kashmir, and the ties of religion, cultural affinity and economic inter-dependence bind the two together still closer. The security and well-being of the people of Kashmir is of the highest importance to the people of Pakistan. We are, therefore, vitally interested in peaceful and honourable conditions for the people of Kashmir so that freed from all pressure, external or internal, they might of their own free will decide to which Dominion they wish to accede. The test of any course of action should therefore be whether it leads to the creation of conditions in which a really free plebiscite can be held. To my mind, the problem can only be solved by an act of statesmanship in the light of the basic realities of the situation and not by any legal disputations as how Pakistan is a party to the dispute or how U. N. O can be brought in. I hope when we meet on the 22nd December we shall be able to discuss the matter in this spirit.
Many thanks for your enquiry about my health. I am feeling better now.”

INDIA’S FORE-RUNNER OF REFERENCE TO U.N.
The text of letter dated December 22, 1947 handed over by the Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlat Nehru, to the Pakistan Prime Minister, Liaquat All Khan, in person, in New Delhi.
“On various occasions, I have drawn your attention to the aid which the invaders of the Jammu and Kashmir State are deriving from Pakistan. Those who come from tribal areas have free transit through Pakistan territory, and many of these invaders are nationals of Pakistan. They are operating against Kashmir from bases in Pakistan. Much of their modern military equipment has been obtained from Pakistan sources; mortars, artillery and Mark V-mines are not normally the kind of armament which tribesmen or civilians possess. Motor transport, which the invaders have been using, and the petrol required for it, could also be obtained In Pakistan only. Food and other supplies are also secured from Pakistan; indeed, we have reliable reports that the invaders get their rations from military messes in Pakistan. According to our information large numbers of these invaders are receiving military training in Pakistan under officers of the Pakistan Army and other Pakistan nationals.
2. The forms of aid, enumerated in the preceding paragraph, which the invaders are receiving, constitute an act of hostility and aggression against India because they are being used against a State which has acceded to the Indian Dominion and is a part thereof.
3. The Government of India, while protesting against the action of the Pakistan Government in furnishing, or allowing such assistance to be furnished, and urging that the Pakistan Government should stop such help and call upon the Invaders to withdraw, have so far taken no action which might involve entry by Indian forces into Pakistan territory. They have been hoping all these weeks, though with diminishing hope, that the Pakistan Government themselves would put a stop to aid to the invaders which is help to India’s enemies. Since protests have failed to bear fruit, the Government of India now formally ask the Government of Pakistan to call upon Pakistan nationals to cease participation in the attack on Jammu and Kashmir State, and to deny to the invaders :
(1) All access to, and use of, Pakistan territory for operations against Kashmir State,
(2) all military and other supplies ;
(3) all other kinds of aid that might tend to prolong the present struggle.
4. The Government of India have always desired and still earnestly desire to live on terms of friendship with Pakistan. They sincerely hope that the request which they have now formally made will be acceded to promptly and without reserve. Failing such response they will be compelled to take such action, with due regard to their rights and obligations as a member of the United Nations, as they may consider necessary to protect their own interests, and those of the Government and people of Jammu and Kashmir State.

PAKISTAN’S COUNTER-CHARGE AGAINST INDIA,
The text of letter dated December 31, 1947 from the Prime Minister of Pakistan to the Prime Minister of India.
“Please refer to your demi-Official dated the 22nd December in which you have brought formal charges against the Pakistan Government for aiding and abetting the so-called ‘invaders’ of Kashmir in their fight against the forces of the Maharaja and of the Indian Dominion.
2. Despite the ominous hint contained in paragraph three, I trust I am right in assuming that your letter is not an “ultimatum” but a fore-run¬ner of a formal reference of the matter to the U.N.O. If so, nothing could be more welcome, for, you will recollect, this is exactly what the Pakistan Government has been suggesting throughout as the most effective method of ironing out our mutual differences. I am, therefore, sincerely glad to find that you propose at last to adopt this particular line of approach to our problems.
3. I must, however, confess my disappointment that your proposal apparently restricts the reference to the single issue of Kashmir. The episode of Kashmir considered by itself would look like a sentence torn out of its context. It is but an act in the unparalleled tragedy which is being enacted before our eyes ever since the announcement of the scheme of partition. A reference to the U.N.O. therefore, in my opinion, must cover much larger ground and embrace all the fundamentals of the differences between the two Dominions. As I see it, it is neither Kashmir alone nor Junagadh and Manavadar, nor even the terrible tragedy of wholesale massacres of Muslim men, women and children in extensive areas of the Indian Dominion, but a totality of these horrors and iniquities, indicating but one consistent sinister pattern, which should rightly form the subject matter of international investigation. If the root causes of the evil, which is vitiating our relations, are not determined and removed, it is much to be feared that fresh incidents will continue to threaten the peace not only between the two Dominions, but in a much wider field.
4. The case of Kashmir is simple and our attitude has been explained frankly and repeatedly both in our communications to you and our official statements to the Press. The Pakistan Government has not accepted and cannot accept the so-called ‘accession’ of the Jammu and Kashmir State to India. We have said it before and repeat that the ‘accession’ was fraudulent inasmuchas it was achieved by deliberately creating conditions with the object of finding an. excuse to stage the ‘accession’. It was based on violence because it furthered the plan of the Kashmir Government to liquidate the Muslim population of the State. The accession was against the well-known will of an overwhelming majority of the population and could not be justified on any grounds whether moral or constitutional; geographical or economic; cultural or religious.
5. The sole responsibility for the disturbances which occurred in the State must squarely lie on the Maharaja and his Government who, despite the advice tendered by the Pakistan Government, persisted in their policy of repression of Muslims. Repression was followed by resistance particularly in the area of Poonch which is inhabited by a large number of ex-soldiers. The resistance in its turn was met with more repression till the Dogra savagery, supported by the brutality of Sikh and Rashtriya Sewak Sangh bands, created a reign of terror in the State. This state of affairs naturally aroused strong feelings of sympathy throughout Pakistan, particularly among the Muslims living in the contiguous areas who had numerous ties of relationship with the persecuted people of the State. Some of these people went across to assist their kinsmen in their struggle for freedom and indeed for existence itself. The stage was thus set for the pre-planned intervention by the forces of the Indian Dominion to quell this spontaneous popular rising against the culmination of the age-long tyranny of the Dogra rule. The repeated warnings of the Pakistan Government went unheeded. This hasty and ill-advised action completely changed the picture and the Frontier tribesmen, a ferociously freedom-loving people, naturally took up the challenge in support of their Kashmir co-religionists fighting for their survival and liberation. If the Government of India had extended to the Pakistan Government the courtesy of consulting it before embarking on its enterprise and suddenly landing troops in Kashmir, or even notifying Pakistan of its proposed action thus providing an opportunity for discussion and consultation, it might have been possible to avert the tragedy of Kashmir. The action of the Government of India served to swell the torrent of popular resentment until it became impossible for the Pakistan Government to stem it without embarking on large-scale military operations.
6. As regards the charges of aid and assistance to the ‘invaders’ by the Pakistan Government we emphatically repudiate them. On the contrary, and solely with the object of maintaining friendly relations between the two Dominions, the Pakistan Government have continued to do all in their power to discourage the tribal movement by all means short of war. This caused bitter resentment throughout the country but, despite a very serious risk of large-scale internal disturbances, the Pakistan Government has not deviated from the policy.
In view of this background it would not be surprising if some nationals of Pakistan were taking part in the struggle for the liberation of Kashmir along with the forces of the Azad Kashmir Government. You must have already heard of an international Brigade composed of represen¬tatives of many nations in the world who are likewise fighting on the side of the Azad Kashmir Government. In regard to the modern military equipment that you allege to be in the possession of the Azad Kashmir forces, our information is that these forces are poorly equipped and such few modern weapons as they might possess, have either been captured from the Dogra and Indian troops or have been in the possession of the ex-soldiers of Poonch since the days of the British. As you know, there are large numbers of Poonch is in the Pakistan Army and if some of them, while on leave in their homes, rendered assistance to their kith and kin in defence of their hearths and homes, it is scarcely to be wondered at.
7. On the contrary, it is the Indian Government which must answer the charge of conspiracy with the Maharaja of Kashmir in repudiation of the very principles on which it had only one month before opposed Junagadh’s accession to Pakistan. The plea that the accession is only temporary pending restoration of peaceful conditions is too flimsy to stand examination, particularly in the light of recent negotiations in the course of which a perfectly fair and workable plan of withdrawal of opposing forces followed by a referendum under impartial aegis suggested by us, was turned down by your Government. But all this fits in with the general ‘pattern’ of the India Government’s political attitude towards Pakistan ever since it became evident that partition was the only possible solution of our constitutional problems.
8. The story begins as early as the middle of 1946 following the demonstration of Muslims throughout the country after the last provincial elections. It became clear that Pakistan was the unalterable goal of the Muslims. The inevitability of the partition of the country, which now became evident to all, gave rise to a wave of deep resentment among the Hindu and Sikh population of the sub-continent. As a direct result of this severe communal rioting occurred in several towns and Provinces of India such as Calcutta, Noakhali, Bihar, Bombay, Garhmukteshwar, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Amritsar. Such communal strife had not been unknown previously, but what was astonishing was the unprecedented scale of killings that took place in Bihar and Garhmukteshwar proving beyond doubt the existence of a well-settled plan of extermination of the Muslims. It was during these disturbances that the Rashtriya Sewak Sangh came to be known as the author of some of the most brutal massacres. The orgy of blood, however, died down In due course, but, as latter events proved, only temporarily.
9. The political activity which took place in the early part of 1947 produced a lull, but soon after the partition plan was announced on the 3rd June 1947, clear indications began to be received that the country was going to be plunged into a blood bath by the fanatical Sikhs and the militant Hindu groups headed by the Rashtriya Sewak Sangh who had made no secret of their opposition to the partition scheme, inspite of its being accepted by the representatives of all the three major communities.
10. The process of partition itself was marked by all manner of obstructions dimed at depriving Pakistan of its rightful share of financial and other assets. Even in cases in which agreement was reached, the implementation was delayed or sabotaged.
11. At this stage the main chain of events which eventually brought untold suffering to millions of people of East Punjab, Rajputana and the United Provinces was set in motion with carefully prepared attack on a special train carrying Pakistan Government employees and their families from Delhi to Karachi on the 9th August 1947. As the plan unfolded itself, it became clear that the Sikhs, encouraged and actively assisted by the Hindus, had determined to liquidate by violent and Moody means the entire Muslim population, of East Punjab, The object of the plan was to kill or drive out Mussalmans in order to settle the Sikh population which was being pulled out of West Punjab under a planned scheme. The modus operandi was to disarm the Muslim population and then to leave it at the mercy of armed bands who were actively assisted by the Army and the police. There is abundant evidence that this plan had the full support and active assistance not only of the officers of the Provincial Government, but also of the Sikh States, such as Patiala, Kapurthala, and Faridkot. Alwar and Bharatpur had already set the example in eliminating their entire Muslim population, but they were soon outdone. Kapurthala, which, like Kashmir, was a Muslim-majority State, has to-day not a single Muslim left. Similarly large tracts of Muslim majority areas which under the Boundary Award had been most unjustly included in East Punjab were depopulated. The whole country was ravaged by fire and sword; vast numbers were butchered and countless women were abducted. Indeed decency forbids mention of some crimes committed against women. Millions were forcibly and ruthlessly driven out of their homes. The process went on, sector by sector, and culminated in the tragedy that was enacted in Delhi, the Capital of India. According to the Government of India itself there was a complete breakdown of administration for a number of days. The destruction and desecration of mosques, tombs and holy places, and forcible conversions on a mass scale, were special features of these happenings.
12. This plan of liquidation of the Muslim population is still proceeding despite the pious professions of the Government of India. The latest example of this is provided by the happenings in the holy city of Ajmer. The Government of Pakistan find difficult to believe that under the circumstances the Government of India are innocent of all complicity in this vast scheme of ‘genocide’ started by the Sikhs and Hindus and encouraged and supported by persons in authority as means of destroying the newly created State of Pakistan. The Mussalmans of India are being subjected to calculated insults and humiliations. All sorts of tests of loyalty are being demanded from them. The one on which particular emphasis is laid is that they should denounce Pakistan and try to undo the partition and express their readiness to fight Pakistan on the side of India in the event of war between the two Dominions. It is a matter for deep regret that even today responsible members of the Government of India, including yourself, openly declare their intention or hope of bringing Pakistan back into the Indian Union, well knowing that this can be done only through conquest by arms. Such an attitude can only mean that the Hindu and Sikh leaders while giving their agreement to the partition plan did so without any inten¬tion, of permitting its implementation and, further, that India is determined to undo the settlement by all means available at its disposal. In other words Pakistan’s very existence is the chief ’causes belli’ solar as India is concerned, it is this impossible position which manifests itself, time and again, in all of India’s dealings with Pakistan whether political, economic or financial and unless an effective remedy is found, it is difficult to see how a direct clash can be avoided with the best will in the world.
13. The events which took place following the announcement of the accession of Junagadh and Manavadar States to Pakistan lend further support to the contention of the Pakistan Government that the Government of India intend by all possible means at their disposal to destroy Pakistan.
In accordance with the agreed scheme of partition and the Indian Independence Act, 1947, Indian States were under no compulsion to join either of the two Dominions. Notwithstanding this clear provision, the Government of India by a combination of threats and cajolery forced a number of States into acceding to the Indian Union. The Rulers of Junagadh and Manavadar were similarly threatened with dire consequences but they stood firm and exercised their right of joining Pakistan in preference to India. This was the signal for India to launch with full force her attack, using every possible weapon in order to force the States against their will to change their affiliation. Protests were made to the Pakistan Government, pointing out that a State which had a Hindu-majority population could not accede to Pakistan as the country had been divided on a communal basis. Another reason given was that Junagadh was not physically contiguous to Pakistan and that its accession to Pakistan was calculated to cause disruption in the integrity of India. Simultaneously with these protests, the Government of India put large bodies of Indian troops on the borders of Junagadh and encouraged the neighbouring Hindu States, which had acceded to India, to do likewise. In clear violation of the stand-still agreement, the Junagadh State was subjected to an economic blockade involving stoppage of all vital supplies, including food, cloth and coal into the State territory. Lines of communication, including railway and telegraph, were operated in such a manner that it became impossible for the State or the Muslim population of Junagadh to communicate with the outside world. A strong Press campaign calculated to destroy the State administration and to create panic among the population was launched both inside and outside the State.
Another line of attack was adopted by setting up the so-called ‘Provisional Government’ with headquarters first at Bombay and later at Rajkot, which claimed the right to liberate the non-Muslim population of the Junagadh State. The so-called ‘Azad Fauj’ of the ‘Provisional Govern-ment’ was created and armed by the officers of the Indian Dominion. The ‘Provisional Government’ not only proceeded to seize by force State property in Rajkot, but by methods of sheer ‘gangsterism’ created conditions in which it became impossible for the State Administration to function. At this point the Government of India sent its troops and occupied the State under the plea of an alleged ‘invitation’ by the Dewan. Since then an orgy of murder, arson, rape and loot has been let loose in Kathiawar by the military forces of India in exactly the same manner as in Northern India, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims have had to flee from the State. According to newspaper reports, Mr. Samaldas Gandhi, the head of the so-called Provisional Government, has openly thanked a member of your Government, for all the assistance received. All this was done in sheer disregard of the international conduct and ordinary neighbourly decency. In the interests of peace between the two Domin¬ions Pakistan refrained from sending a single soldier to Junagadh. Occupation by force of Junagadh, which is Pakistan territory, is a clear act of aggression against Pakistan.
14. In case of Manavadar even the thin camouflage of a semblance of justification was not considered necessary and the State was taken under military occupation without the slightest explanation being given. A similar fate befell the Talukdari States of Sardargarh, Bantva, Sultanabad and Mangrol. The unfortunate rulers of some of these States have been kept in detention and have been subjected to considerable pressure to wean them from their affiliation to Pakistan.
15. This brief account of India’s dealings with a friendly State can leave no doubt in the mind of any impartial person that the new India does not feel herself bound by any moral or international code of rules. The military coup d’etat by which the occupation of Junagadh and Manavadar and other States was achieved, is of one piece with the general scheme of destroying the integrity and the very existence of Pakistan to which reference has been made. We have formally drawn your attention to the various acts of hostility culminating in actual seizure of Pakistan territory by the India Government in Junagadh, but have not received even the courtesy of a reply. Perhaps now that you propose to take the case of Kashmir to the U. N. O. you would be good enough to let us know why, in spite of our clear request, you have not withdrawn from the territories of Junagadh, Manavadar and Mangrol, etc. ?
In this connection it is of interest to note that the arguments advanced by India for refusing to accept the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan have been conveniently and completely ignored in connection with the accession of Kashmir to the Indian Dominion. This again is fully in keeping with the general political attitude of India towards Pakistan.
16. These are not the only examples of aggression against Pakistan territory. Numerous raids by armed bands, assisted by the police and military, have taken place across the border into Pakistan. The Royal Indian Air Force have made repeated attacks on Pakistan territory causing damage to life and property.
17. Another illustration of the same attitude is provided by the refusal of the India Government to implement the recent financial agreement of all outstanding cases which had been referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. The India Government is deliberately withholding the payment of Rupees fifty-five crores of the cash balances which is the legal due of the Pakistan Government according to this agreement. This is the latest manifestation of their desire to strangle Pakistan financially and economically which characterised the partition proceedings. In the case of military stores there has been a similar refusal to implement the agreement. The Supreme Commander, who was appointed as a neutral authority under the Joint Defence to carry into effect the partition of the armed forces and military stores, was forced despite the protestations of the Pakistan Govern¬ment, to leave by your Government long before he could complete his task. At the time this was done the Indian representatives on the Joint Defence Council pledged the word of the India Cabinet that Pakistan would receive her due share of military stores. This pledge, like other similar pledges of the India Government, has not been honoured and the slight trickle of military stores to Pakistan shows signs of stopping altogether.
18. To sum up, our counter-charges against the Dominion of India are as follows:
(1) that India has never wholeheartedly accepted the partition scheme, but her leaders paid lip-service to it merely in order to get the British troops out of the country;
(2) that India is out to destroy the State of Pakistan which her leaders persistently continue to regard as part of India itself;
(3) that the systematic sabotage against the implementation of partition, the stoppage of such essential requirements as coal and rail transport, the deliberate withholding of Pakistan’s share of funds and arms and equipment, and the wholesale massacres of Muslim population are all designed toward one aim, namely, the destruction of Pakistan;
(4) that India’s forcible occupation of Junagadh, Manavadar and other States in Kathiawar which had acceded to Pakistan, as well as the fraudulent procurement of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir State, are acts of hostility against Pakistan whose destruction is India’s immediate objective.
19. I, however, note with pleasure your assurance that the Government of India have always desired and still earnestly desire to live on terms of friendship with Pakistan. On behalf of the Pakistan Government I fully and sincerely reciprocate this desire. I am constrained, however, to observe that the Government of India have at no stage afforded any practical proof of their desire to live on terms of friendship with Pakistan, more particularly in the case of Junagadh and Kashmir. On my side, I can assure you that, the earnest desire of the Government of Pakistan to live on terms of friendship with India has, in many instances, restrained the Government of Pakistan from taking action which would not only have been legally justifiable but was in several instances urgently called for and yet was not adopted in the hope that the attitude of the Government of India might, even during these later stages, be more favourably affected towards Pakistan. I find it more and more difficult to persuade myself to continue to entertain that hope. The course of events, very briefly set out above, would normally have been treated as a chain of aggression justifying extreme action on the part of the aggrieved Government. Now that your letter of the 22nd December 1947 has indicated intention on your part of the Government of India to invite the intervention of the United Nations, a course which the Pakistan Government has so far ineffectively suggested to the Government of India, for the resolving of their differences, I have taken this opportunity to invite your attention to the main heads of the differences between the two Governments that stand in the way of an amicable adjustment of our relations. It is my most earnest hope that these differences may be speedily composed and that our relations will thereafter ever continue to be on the most cordial, co-operative, and friendly basis. I trust you will agree that intervention of the United Nations, whatever form is to take, should be invited in respect of all these matters, so that pending differences may be speedily resolved.”

Resolution Adopted by the Security Council
Resolution adopted at the 229th Meeting of the Security Council on 17 January, 1948.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Having heard statements on the situation in Kashmir from representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan.
Recognising the urgency of the situation.
Taking note of the telegram addressed on 6 January by its President to each of the parties and of their replies thereto; and in which they affirmed their intention to conform to the Charter of the United Nations.
1. Calls upon both the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan to take immediately all measures within their power (including public appeals to their people) calculated to improve the situation, and to refrain from making any statements and from doing or causing to be done or permitting any acts which might aggravate the situation;
2. Further requests each of those Governments to inform the Council immediately of any material change in the situation which occurs or appears to either of them to be about to occur while the matter is under consideration by the Council, and consult with the Council thereon
Adopted by 9 votes abstentions (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
Decision
At its 229th meeting on 17th January 1948, the Council decided that the President should invite the representatives of India and Pakistan to take part in direct talks under his guidance in an effort to find some common ground on which the structure of a settlement might be built.
(Res. 38 (1948); UN Document no. S/651)

Resolution adopted at the 230th Meeting of the Security Council on 20th January, 1948.
THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Considering that it may investigate any dispute or any situation which might, by its continuance, endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, and that, in the existing state of affairs between India and Pakistan, such an investigation is a matter of urgency.
Adopts the following resolution:
[A] A Commission of the Security Council is hereby established, composed of representatives of three Members of the United Nations, one to be selected by India, one to be selected by Pakistan, and the third to be designated by the two so selected. Each representative on the Commission shall be entitled to select his alternates and assistants.
[B] The Commission shall proceed to the spot as quickly as possible. It shall act under the authority of the Security Council and in accordance with the directions it may receive from it. It shall keep the Security Council currently informed of its activities and of the development of the situation. It shall report to the Security Council regularly, submitting its conclusions and proposals.
[C] The Commission is invested with a dual function;
(1) to investigate the facts pursuant to Article 34 of the Charter of the United Nations;
(2) to exercise, without interrupting the work of the Security Council, any mediatory influence likely to smooth away difficulties, to carry out the directions given to it by the Security Council; and to report how far the advice and directions, if any, of the Security Council, have
been carried out.
[D] The Commission shall perform the functions described in Clause C:
(1) in regard to the situation in the Jammu and Kashmir State set out in the letter of the Representative of India addressed to the President of the Security Council, dated 1 January 1948, and in the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 15 January 1948; and

(2) in regard to other situations set out in the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 15 January 1948, when she Security Council so directs.
[E] The Commission shall take its decision by majority vote. It shall determine its own procedure. It may allocate among its members, alternate members, their assistants, and its personnel such duties as may have to be fulfilled for the realisation of its mission and the reaching of its conclusions.
[F] The Commission, its members, alternate members, their assistants, and its personnel, shall be entitled to journey, separately or together, wherever the necessities of their task may require, and, in particular within those territories which are the theatre of the events of which the Security Council is seized.
[G] The Secretary-General shall furnish the Commission with such personnel and assistance as it may consider necessary.
Adopted by 9 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(Source: Res. 39 (1948); UN Document no. 654).

Resolution Adopted at the 286th Meeting of the Security Council on 21st April, 1948

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Having considered the complaint of the Government of India concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Having heard the representative of India in support of that complaint and the reply and counter complaints of the representative of Pakistan.
Being strongly of opinion that the early restoration of peace and order in Jammu and Kashmir is essential and that India and Pakistan should do their utmost to bring about cessation of all fighting.
Noting with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that 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.
Considering that the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security.
Reaffirms its resolution 38 (1948) of 17 January 1948;
Resolves that the membership of the Commission established by its resolution 39 (1948) of 20 January 1948, shall be increased to five and shall include, in addition to the membership mentioned in that Resolution, representatives of… and …, and that if the membership of the Commission has not been completed within ten days from the date the adoption of this resolution the President of the Council may designate such other Member or Members of the United Nations as are required to complete the membership of five;
Instructs the Commission to proceed at once to the Indian subcontinent and there place its good offices and mediation at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan with a view to facilitating the taking of the necessary measures, both with respect to the restoration of peace and order and to the holding of a plebiscite by the two (Governments, acting in co-operation with one another and with the Commission, and further instructs the Commission to keep the Council informed of the action taken under the resolution; and, to this end.
Recommends to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following measures as those which in the opinion of the Council and appropriate to bring about a cessation of the lighting and to create proper conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to accede to India or Pakistan:
A-RESTORATION OF PEACE AND ORDER
1. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours:
(a) To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State;
(b) To make known to all concerned that the measures indicated in this and the following paragraphs provide full freedom to all subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste, or party, to express their views and to vote on the question of the accession of the State, and that therefore they should co-operate in the maintenance of peace and order.
2. The Government of India should:
(a) When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council’s Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order;
(b) Make known that the withdrawal is taking place in stages and announce the completion of each stage;
(c) When the Indian forces shall have been reduced to the minimum strength mentioned in (a) above, arrange in consultation with the Commission for the stationing of the remaining forces to be carried out in accordance with the following principles:
(i) That the presence of troops should not afford any intimidation or appearance of intimidation to the inhabitants of the State;
(ii) That as small a number as possible should be retained in forward areas;
(iii) That any reserve of troops which may be included in the total strength should be located within their present base area.
3. The Government of India should agree that until such time as the plebiscite administration referred to below finds it necessary to exercise the powers of direction and supervision over the State forces and policy provided for in paragraph 8, they will be held in areas to be agreed upon with the Plebiscite Administrator.
4. After the plan referred to in paragraph 2 (a) above has been put into operation, personnel recruited locally in each district should so far as possible be utilised for the re-establishment and maintenance of law and order with due regard to protection of minorities, subject to such additional requirements as may be specified by the Plebiscite Administration referred to in paragraph 7.
5. If these local forces should be found to be inadequate, the Commission, subject to the agreement of both the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, should arrange for the use of such forces of either Dominion as it deems effective for the purpose of pacification.
B – PLEBISCITE
6. The Government of India should undertake to ensure that the Government of the State invite the major political groups to designate responsible representatives to share equitably and fully in the conduct of the administration at the ministerial level, while the plebiscite is being prepared and carried out.
7. The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold a Plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan.
8. The Government of India should undertake that there will be delegated by the State to the Plebiscite Administration such powers as the latter considers necessary for holding a fair and impartial plebiscite including, for that purpose only, the direction and supervision of the State forces and police.
9. The Government of India should at the request of the Plebiscite Administration, make available from the Indian forces such assistance as the Plebiscite Administration may require for the performance of its functions.
10. (a) The Government of India should agree that a nominee of the Secretary-General of the United Nations will be appointed to be the Plebiscite Administrator.
(b) The Plebiscite Administrator, acting as an officer of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should have authority to nominate the assistants and other subordinates and to draft regulations governing the Plebiscite. Such nominees should be formally appointed and such draft regulations should be formally promulgated by the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
(c) The Government of India should undertake that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir will appoint fully qualified persons nominated by the Plebiscite Administrator to act as special magistrates within the State judicial system to hear cases which in the opinion of the Plebiscite Administrator have a serious bearing on the preparation and the conduct of a free and impartial plebiscite.
(d) The terms of service of the Administrator should form the subject of a separate negotiation between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Government of India. The Administrator should fix the terms of service for his assistants and subordinates.
(e) The Administrator should have the right to communicate directly, with the Government of the State and with the Commission of the Security Council and, through the Commission, with the Security Council, with the Governments of India and Pakistan and with their representatives with the Commission. It would be his duty to bring to the notice of any or all of the foregoing (as he in his discretion may decide) any circumstances arising which may tend, in his opinion, to interfere with the freedom of the Plebiscite.
11. The Government of India should undertake to prevent to give full support to the Administrator and his staff in preventing any threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the voters in the plebiscite, and the Government of India should publicly announce and should cause the Government of the State to announce this undertaking as an international obligation binding on all public authorities and officials in Jammu and Kashmir.
12. The Government of India should themselves and through the Government of the State declare and make known that all subjects of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of creed, caste or
party, will be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the State and that there will be freedom of the Press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit.
13. The Government of India should use and should ensure that the Government of the State also use their best endeavour to effect the withdrawal from the State of all Indian nationals other than those who are normally resident therein or who on or since 15th August 1947 have entered it for a lawful purpose.
14. The Government of India should ensure that the Government of the State releases all political prisoners and take all possible steps so that:
(a) all citizens of the State who have left it on account of disturbances are invited and are free to return to their homes and to exercise their rights as such citizens;
(b) there is no victimisation; minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection.
15. The Commission of the Security Council should at the end of the plebiscite certify to the Council whether the plebiscite has or has not been really free and impartial.
C – GENERAL PROVISIONS
16. The Governments of India and Pakistan should each be invited to nominate a representative to be attached to the Commission for such assistance as it may require in the performance of its task.
17. The Commission should establish in Jammu and Kashmir such observers as it may require of any of the proceedings in pursuance of the measures indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.
18. The Security Council Commission should carry out the tasks assigned to it herein.
The five members of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan were; Czechoslovakia (nominated by India on 10 February 1948); Belgium and Colombia (appointed by the Council on 23 April 1948 – see the decision below); Argentina (nominated by Pakistan on 30 April 1948); United Stated America (designated the President of the Council on 7 May 1948, in the absence of agreement between Argentina and Czechoslovakia on the member to be designated by them).
Decision
At the 287th meeting, on 23rd April 1948, the Council, pursuant to its resolution 47 (1948), appointed Belgium and Colombia as the additional members for India and Pakistan.
Adopted by 7 votes to none, with 4 abstentions Belgium, Colombia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
(Source: Res. 47 (1948), UN Document no. 726)

Resolution Adopted at the 312th Meeting of the Security Council on 3rd June, 1948
THE SECURITY COUNCIL
1. Reaffirms its resolutions 38(1948) of 17 January, 39(1948) of 20 January, and 47(1948) of 21 April, 1948;
2. Directs the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan to proceed without delay to the areas of dispute with a view to accomplishing in priority the duties assigned to it by the resolution 47(1948);
3. Directs the Commission further to study and report to the Security Council when it considers appropriate on the matters raised in the letter of Foreign Minister of Pakistan, dated 15th January, 1948, in the order outlined in paragraph D of Council resolution 39 (1948).
Adopted by 8 votes to none with 3 abstentions (China, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(Res. 51 (1948); UN Document no. S/819)

UNCIP Resolution of August, 13 1948
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Having given careful consideration to the points of view expressed by the Representatives, of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and
Being of the opinion that the prompt cessation of hostilities and the correction of conditions the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security are essential to implementation of its endeavours to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan in effecting a final settlement of the situation.
Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal:
PART I
CEASE-FIRE ORDER
A. The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously a cease-fire order to apply to all forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments.
B. The High Commands of Indian and Pakistan forces agree to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (For the purpose of these proposals forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organised and unorganised, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides).
C. The Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease-fire.
D. In its discretion, and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who under the authority of the Commission and with the co-operation of both Commands will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order.
E. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.
PART II
TRUCE AGREEMENT
Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their Representatives and the Commission.

A.
(1) As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.
(2) The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
(3) Pending a final solution the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

B.
(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.
(2) Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.
(3) The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within their power to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be guaranteed.
C.
(1) Upon signature, the full text of the Truce Agreement or communique containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.
PART III
The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the Truce Agreement both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.

Resolution adopted at the meeting of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 5th January, 1949
(Document no. S/1196, Para 15, /dated 10 January, 1949)
THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Having received from the Governments of India and Pakistan in Communications, dated December 23 and December 25, 1948, respectively their acceptance of the following principles which are supplementary to the Commission’s Resolution of August 13, 1948;
1. The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite;
2. A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by the Commission that the cease-fire and truce arrangements set forth in Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, have been carried out and arrangements for the plebiscite have been completed;
3. (a) The Secretary-General of the United Nations will, in agreement with the Commission, nominate a Plebiscite Administrator who shall be a personality of high international standing and commanding general confidence. He will be formally appointed to office by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
(b) The Plebiscite Administrator shall derive from the State of Jammu and Kashmir the powers he considers necessary for organising and conducting the plebiscite and for ensuring the freedom and impartiality of the plebiscite.
(c) The Plebiscite Administrator shall have authority to appoint such staff or assistants and observers as he may require.
4. (a) After implementation of Parts I and II of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, and when the Commission is satisfied that peaceful conditions have been restored in the State, the Commission and the Plebiscite Administrator will determine, in consultation with the Government of India, the final disposal of Indian and State armed forces, such disposal to be with due regard to the security of the State and the freedom of the plebiscite.
(b) As regards the territory referred to in A 2 of Part II of the resolution of 13 August, final disposal of the armed forces in that territory will be determined by the Commission and the Plebiscite Administrator in consultation with the local authorities.
5. All civil and military authorities within the State and the principal political elements of the State will be required to co-operate with the Plebiscite Administrator in the preparation for and the holding of
the plebiscite.
6. (a) All citizens of the State who have left it on account of the disturbances will be invited and be free to return and to exercise all their rights as such citizens. For the purpose of facilitating repatriation there shall be appointed two Commissions, one composed of nominees of India and the other of nominees of Pakistan. The Commissions shall operate under the direction of the Plebiscite Administrator. The Governments of India and Pakistan and all authorities within the State of Jammu and Kashmir will collaborate with the Plebiscite Administrator in putting this provision to effect.
(b) All persons (other than citizens of the State) who on or since 15 August 1947, have entered it for other than lawful purpose, shall be required to leave the State.
7. All authorities within the State of Jammu and Kashmir will undertake to ensure in collaboration with the Plebiscite Administrator that:
(a) There is no threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the voters in plebiscite;
(b) No restrictions are placed on legitimate political activity throughout the State. All subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste or party, shall be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan. There shall be freedom of the Press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit;
(c) All political prisoners are released;
(d) Minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection; and
(e) There is no victimisation.
8. The Plebiscite Administrator may refer to the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan problems on which he may require assistance, and the Commission may in its discretion call upon the Plebiscite Administrator to carry out on its behalf any of the responsibilities with which it has been entrusted;
9. At the conclusion of the plebiscite, the Plebiscite Administrator shall report the result thereof to the Commission and to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. The Commission shall then certify to the Security Council whether the Plebiscite has or has not been free and impartial;
10. Upon the signature of the truce agreement the details of the foregoing proposals will be elaborated in the consultation envisaged in Part III of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948. The Plebiscite Administrator will be fully associated in these consultations;
Commends the Governments of India and Pakistan for their prompt action in ordering a cease-fire to take effect from one minute before midnight of first January 1949, pursuant to the agreement arrived at as provided for by the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948; and
Resolves to return in the immediate future to the sub-continent to discharge the responsibilities imposed upon it by the resolution of 13 August 1948, and by the foregoing principles.

UNCIP TRUCE TERMS
Truce terms transmitted to the Government of India and Pakistan by the Commission (S/AC.12/295)
02 May 1949
I. CEASE-FIRE LINE
a) The cease-fire line will be the line fixed by the Commission and except as noted below, traced in yellow on the map annexed, and based upon the factual positions occupied on 1 January 1949 by the forces under the control of the Indian and Pakistan High Commands based also upon the same factual considerations, the line between Chakothi ard Tithwal and from Chorwan to the north of Dras, shall be demarcated as soon as possible by the Military Adviser of the Commission. The cease-fire line shall eliminate all no-man’s lands and shall be demarcated on the ground by agreement between the respective local Commanders, assisted by the Commission’s Military Observers. The line shall, to the greatest extent possible, follow easily recognizable features on the ground.
b) The Commissions Military Adviser shall decide without appeal, local adjustments of the cease-fire line in cases where no agreements is reached between the local Commanders.
c) The Commission will have Observers stationed where it deems necessary throughout the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
d) Observers will advise the Commission and/or the Plebiscite Administrator regarding developments in the sparsely populated and mountainous region of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir in the north.
Without prejudice to the provisions of point 8 of the resolution of 5 January 1949, should the Commission and/or the Plebiscite Administrator conclude upon advice from the Observers, or upon reports from the Government of India, that it is necessary for the defence of the area, the Commission and/or the Plebiscite Administrator may request the Government of India to post garrisons at specified points.

II. WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS
A. The Government of Pakistan agrees :
1. To withdraw its troops from the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in seven weeks as follows:
a) During the first three weeks twenty infantry battalions, plus the corresponding proportion of artillery and supporting units.
b) During the following fortnight the remainder of the Pakistan troops, with the exception of eight infantry battalions.
c) By the end of the seventh week, all Pakistan troops, including their ammunition, stores and material, will have left the territory of the State.
B. The Government of India agrees:
1. To withdraw the bulk of its forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir in stages submitted by the Commission for the agreement of the Government of India. The withdrawal will begin as soon as the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals, not normally resident in Jammu and Kashmir territory who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting have withdrawn, and that the Pakistan troops are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
2. That the schedule of the withdrawal of Indian forces will made public by the Commission with the schedule of the withdrawal of Pakistan forces immediately after the acceptance of these terms by both Governments.
C. The operations mentioned in the above paragraphs A and B will be carried out under the surveillance of the Commission through its Military Adviser.
III GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. The territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.
B. Immediately upon the acceptance of these terms, the Commission would enter into consultations with the Government of India regarding the disposal of the Indian and State armed forces, and with the local authorities regarding the disposal of the armed forces in the territory to be evacuated by Pakistan troops, with a view to initiating implementation of point 4 (a) and (b) of the ‘Commission’s resolution of 5 January 1949.
C. If, before expiration of the seven weeks contemplated in point II. A, decisions are reached in the consultations for the initial implementation referred to in ‘III. B. above, the schedule of withdrawal of the Pakistan Army, as provided for in II. A. above, may be extended to three months, in order to facilitate the implementation of decisions relating to point 4 (b) of the Commission’s resolution of 5 January 1949.
D. All prisoners of war will be released within one month.
E. All land mines will be immediately lifted by the side which sowed them.
F. It will be made publicly known throughout the State of Jammu and Kashmir that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be guaranteed.
G. These terms are without prejudice to the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
H. These terms do not prejudice the functions and powers of the Plebiscite Administrator.
I. These terms will become effective and will be published by the Commission immediately upon their acceptance by both Governments.
PROVISIONAL AGENDA
(For Joint Political Meeting of August 17 1949)
1. Adoption of the agenda.
2. Withdrawal of Pakistan armed forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir (resolution of 13 August 1948, part II. A I).
3. Withdrawal of tribesmen and all Pakistan nationals not normally resident in the State of Jammu and Kashmir who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting (resolution of 13 August 1948, part II, A 2)
4. Withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian Armed forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir (resolution of 13 August 1948, part II, B 1, 2).
5. Related questions.

THE UNCIP MEMORANDUM ON ARBITRATION
Memorandum approved by the Commission at its 6th meeting on 26 August 1949 (S/AC.12/251)
26 August 1949
1. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan has given long and intensive study to the replies of the Governments of India and Pakistan of 18 and 30 May 1949, respectively, to the Commission’s Truce Terms of 28 April, as well as to the letter of the Government of India of 17 June and the results of the consultations between representatives of the Commission and the Government of Pakistan in Karachi, 25 to 28 June 1949. As the two Governments are aware, the Commission has recognised that neither Government has found it possible to give to the truce terms the unreserved acceptance requested by the Commission.
2. The Commission subsequently decided to seek to bring about agreement on a cease-fire line through meeting of the military representatives of the two Governments. The Commission is highly gratified that these meetings, held in Karachi from to 29 July 1949 resulted in the definition of an agreed cease-fire, thus completing the implementation of part I of the resolution of 18 August 1948.
3. Hopeful that the success of the meetings of the military repre-sentatives held in Karachi presaged a new and more suitable oppor¬tunity for both Governments to agree on the problem relating to the implementation of part II of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 2948, the Commission invited the Governments of India and Pakistan to send representatives to meet together under the auspices of the Commission. In view of the letters of reply from the both Govern¬ments wherein they reaffirmed their opposed position with respect to the provisional agenda, the Commission felt constrained to with¬draw its invitation, for the reasons expressed in its letter of 19 August 1949.
4. The implementation of part II of the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948 remains unaccomplished. The Commission strongly feels that early and definitive action in this regard is desirable, and has no doubt that both Governments share this view. The Commission remains convinced of the sincere desire of both Governments to solve the Kashmir problem by peaceful means and of their firm in¬tention to fulfil the commitments they have entered into in this regard.
5. The Commission has therefore, in the light of existing circu-mstances decided to ask both Governments whether they will agree to the course of action outlined below for tie conclusion of the truce:
(i) The two Governments agree :
a) That they will submit to arbitration the differences existing between them concerning all questions raised by them regarding the implementation of part II of the resolution of 13 August 1943, the Arbi¬trator to decide these questions according to equity, and his decisions to be binding on both parties :
b) That the arbitration will terminate area the truce terms are decided upon ;
c) That United States Fleet Admiral Chesar W. Nimitz will be the Arbitrator :
d) That the procedure for the arbitration will be worked out subsequently ;
e) That since the procedure of arbitration will be limited to the conclusion, of a truce the Commission will continue in the exercise of its functions. Upon an arbitral decision the Commission will undertake the tasks assigned to it under the truce and under the resolution of 5, January 1949.
(ii) With reference to paragraph (i) (d), above, the Commission considers that it would be inappropriate, in advance of approval by the parties of the proposed course of action and of the person of the arbitrator, to seek to define the exact procedure to be followed.
6. The Commission recommends this course of actions as an effective means of overcoming the obstacles which have so far stood in the way of implementation of the truce agreement. If it is accepted by the two Governments the Commission is confident that the implementa¬tion of the truce agreement will be speedily begin and that the Comm¬ission and the two Governments be placed in a position to pursue their respective tasks leading to the final settlement of the problem, the continued existence of which is source of grave concern not only to both Governments but also to the other Member States of the United Nations.
7. The Commission requests after your Government has given the matter its careful and deliberate consideration, it may be favoured with a written reply.

THE MCNAUGHTON PROPOSAL
Proposal in respect of Jammu and Kashmir made by General A.G.L. McNaughton, President of the Security Council of the United Nations, pursuant to the decision of the Security Council taken at its 45th meeting on 17 December, 1949.
1. The principal considerations underlying the following propo¬sals of the President of the Security Council of the United Nations are:
a) To determine the future of Jammu and Kashmir by the democratic method of the free and impartial plebiscite, to take place as early as possible,
b) Thus to settle this issue between the Governments of India and Pakistan in accordance with the freely expressed will of the inhabitants as is desired by both Governments.
c) To preserve the substantial measure of agreement on funda¬mental principles which has already been reached between the two Governments under the auspices of the United Nations.
d) To avoid unprofitable discussion of disputed issues of the past, and to look forward into the future towards the good neighbourly and constructive co-operation of the two great nations.
Demilitarization Preparatory To The Plebiscite
2. There should be an agreed programme of progressive demilitarization, the basic principle of which should be the reduction of armed forces on either side of the Cease-Fire line by withdrawal, disbandment and disarmament in such stages as not to cause fear at any point of time to the people on either side of the cease-fire line. The aim should be to reduce the armed personnel in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on each side of the cease-fire line to the minimum compatible with the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and to a level sufficiently low and with the forces so disposed that they will not constitute a restriction on the free expression of opinion for the purposes of the plebiscite.
a. The programme of demilitarization should include the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of the regular forces of Pakistan, and the withdrawal of the forces of India not required for purposes of security or for the maintenance of local law and order on the Indian side of the Cease-Fire line; also the reduction by disbanding and disarming of local forces, including on the one side the Armed Forces and Militia of the State of Kashmir and on the other, the Armed Forces.
b. The “Northern Area” should also be included in the above programme of demilitarization, and its administration should, subject to United Nations supervision, be continued by the existing local authorities.
Suggested Basis of Agreement
3. The Governments of India and Pakistan should reach agree¬ment not later than 31 January 1950 in New York on the following points.
a. The Government of Pakistan give unconditional assurance to the Government of India that they will deal effectively within their own borders with any possibility of tribal incursion into Jammu and Kashmir to the end that, under no circums¬tances, will tribesmen be able unlawfully to enter the State of Jammu and Kashmir from or through the territory of Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan should undertake to keep the senior United Nations military observer informed and to satisfy him that the arrangements to this end are and continue to be adequate.
b. The Governments of India and Pakistan should confirm the continued and unconditional inviolability of the “Cease-Fire Line.”
c. Agreement should be reached on the basic principles of demilitarization outlined in paragraph 2 above.
d. Agreement should be reached on the minimum forces requir¬ed for the maintenance of security and of local law and order, and on their general disposition.
e. Agreement should be reached on a date by which the reduction of forces, to the level envisaged in paragraph 2 above, is to be accomplished.
f. Agreement should be reached on the progressive steps to be taken in reducing and redistributing the forces to the level envisaged in paragraph 2 above.

g. The programme of demilitarization should include the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of the regular forces of Pakistan, and the withdrawal of the forces of India not required for purposes of security or for the maintenance of local law and order on the Indian side of the Cease-Fire line; also the reduction by disbanding and disarming of local forces, including on the one side the Armed Forces and Militia of the State of Kashmir and on the other, the Armed Forces.
4. In respect to the foregoing matters, the Government of India and of Pakistan should further agree that a United Nations representa¬tive, to be appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in agreement with the two Governments, should supervise the execution of the progressive steps in reduction and redistribution of armed forces end that it should be the responsibility of this United Nations representative to give assurance to the people on both sides of the Cease-Fire line that they have no cause for fear at any stage throughout the process. This United Nations representative should have the duty and authority.
a. of interpreting the agreements reached between the parties pursuant to paragraph 3, sub paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) above, and
b. of determining, in consultation, with the Governments of India and Pakistan respectively, the implementation of the plan for the reduction and redistribution of armed forces referred to in. paragraph 3 (f) above.
5. When the agreed programme of demilitarization preparatory to the plebiscite has been accomplished to the satisfaction of the United Nations representative, the Plebiscite Administrator should proceed forthwith to exercise the functions assigned to him under the terms of the resolution of the UNCIP of 5 January 1949 which, together with the Commission’s resolution of 13 August 1948, was accepted by Governments of India and Pakistan and which are now reaffirmed by these Governments of India and Pakistan and which are now reaffirmed by these Governments except in so far as the provisions therein contained are modified by the relevant provisions of this document. The functions and powers of the Plebiscite Administrator remain as set forth in the Commission’s resolution of 5 January 1949.
6. The United Nations representative should be authorised to make any suggestions to the Governments of India and Pakistan which in his opinion are likely to contribute to the expeditious and enduring solution of the Kashmir question; and of place his good offices at their disposal.
Prepared in identic copies to be delivered to Sir Girja Bajpal for the Government of India and to Sir Zafrulla Khan for the Government of Pakistan respectively.
New York City, A. G. L. McNaughton
23—00 hours President of the Security
22 December 1949 Council

Constituent Assembly Debates On 27 May, 1949 Part I
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA – Volume VIII Friday, the 27th May 1949 The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, at Eight of the Clock, Mr. President (The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad) in the Chair.
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma (United Provinces: General): Mr. President, Sir, may I with your permission draw you attention to one of the important matters in regard to the issue of new coins in our country? Our trouble is that the Indian Parliament as such is not sitting these days and the Constituent Assembly is the only supreme body which is in session. Now, the whole question regarding the issue of new coins is being discussed, I believe, in the Finance Department and I have been informed that certain decisions also have been taken in this regard. The question of the issue of coins is of great importance and I have been informed that not even the Finance Committee so far has been taken into confidence in regard to the design of the new coins. Particularly, I have been informed that the English alphabets find a prominent place in the new coins even though there is one Asoka Stambha and though the effigy of king has been done’ away with. I would, therefore, request you, Sir, to be pleased to give an opportunity to this House to consider this question, and if necessary, to call in the Honourable the Finance Minister for this purpose.
Mr. President: I am afraid we cannot take up this question in this House. We are here for the purpose of preparing the Constitution and the question which is raised by the honourable Member really belongs to the legislative side of the House and I would suggest that he might take it up there or, as the Assembly is not sitting, he might take it up with the Government.
ADDITION OF PARA. 4-A TO CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY RULES (SCHEDULE) The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir, I rise to move:
“That after paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Constituent Assembly Rules, the following paragraph be inserted, namely:-
‘4-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 4, all the seats in the Assembly allotted to the State of Kashmir may be filled by nomination and the representatives of the State to be chosen to fill such seats may be nominated by the Ruler of Kashmir on the advice of his Prime Minister.'”
Sir, very few words are really needed from me to commend this motion to the House. Kashmir is one of the States which under the rules frame for the composition of this Assembly have to be represented in the House Rules have been framed as to how this representation could be secured. But though Kashmir acceded to the Indian Dominion so far back as the end of October 1947, this representation has not materialised. honourable Members will remember that the conditions in Kashmir have been in a fluid state all these months. The accession itself we asked for by the Ruler of Kashmir; it was supported by the largest political party in the State, and the Governor-General accepted the accession. As I said, that acceptance was somewhere about the end of October 1947.
Before I go to the Rules, I must point out that all States which have acceded to the Indian Dominion have been included in the Schedule to the Constituent Assembly Rules. One of these States is Kashmir. Again, in the Draft Constitution that has been placed before the House, in Part III of Scheduled I, honourable Members will find Kashmir as one of the States which would be put into that Schedule. But, so far as representation goes, the procedure has undergone changes from time to time on account of the difficulties that cropped up in respect of implementing the rules that were originally framed for the return of State’s representatives to this House. The last of such rules is contained in Rule 4 of the Constituent Assembly Rules that are now in force. In this rule, the seats allotted to the States have of the States concerned, and the remainder to be nominated by the Ruler himself.
So far as Kashmir is concerned, the number of seats allotted under these rules to this State is four, that is to say, one or every million of the population. If this rule is to be followed, not less than half of this number would have to be elected by the legislature. There is, under the Constitution of Kashmir, a legislative Assembly which is called the Praja Sabha. Elections to this Assembly took place about the months of December 1946 and January 1947 and this Assembly came into existence soon after these elections were over. There was one meeting held within two or three months therefore, which was convened for the purpose of passing the budget of the State. All this happened before the transfer of power and the change in the status of Indian States that took place after the transfer of power. After the 15th of August 1947, Kashmir stood by itself till, somewhere about the end of October 1947, it acceded to India. There has been no meeting of this Praja Sabha since about April 1947. From October 1947, honourable Members are aware that there was a great deal of disturbance owing to the raids that were made on the western portion of Kashmir State and all that followed. The conditions have been very difficult.
Now, this Assembly has not been in existence since then. It exists perhaps on paper; but it is dead. In October 1947 accession took place. Soon after that took place, the Maharaja set up an emergency administration the head of which was Sheikh Mohammed Abdulla, the leader of the most popular party in Kashmir. In March 1948, he substituted for this emergency administration what he called a popular interim Government, consisting of a Council of Ministers. He called Sheikh Mohammed Abdulla to accept the office of Prime Minister and left it to him to choose his colleagues. This Government was to work on the principle of joint responsibility. In the Proclamation that he issued setting up this new Government, he made no reference to the Praja Sabha, but called upon this new Government, as soon as peace had been restored, to convoke a National Assembly which should proceed to frame a Constitution of the State. At present, the old Praja Sabha is dead; the new National Assembly has not come into existence, because if conditions not having settled down to that level of peace and tranquillity, and also of economic and political equilibrium which alone can justify the convoking of the National Assembly.
In these circumstances, we have to choose a method by which we could get representatives into this Assembly taking the present facts into consideration. I take it honourable Member will concede that it is very important that Kashmir, which is now a part of India, should be represented in this Assembly. I wish that representation had been brought about much earlier then now; but various things have conspired to prevent that, but we are today in a position to bring to this House four persons who could be said to be fairly representatives of the population of Kashmir. The point that I wish to urge is that, while tow of these representatives would in any case under the present rules be persons who could be nominated by the Ruler, we are suggesting that all the four persons should be nominated by the Ruler on the advice of his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister happens to represent the largest political party in the State. Apart from that,we have got to remember that the Prime Minister and his Government are not based upon the Praja Sabha which is dead, but based rather upon the fact that they represent the largest political party in the State. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the head of this Party who is also the Prime Minister should have the privilege of advising the Ruler as to who would be the proper representative of Kashmir in the Constituent Assembly. That is why we have made this suggestion. Under the circumstances, that is about the best that could be done. It would produce a certain amount of intimate relationship between this Constituent Assembly and the Government and people of Kashmir. Those representatives would come here and take part in the further proceedings of this House. As honourable Members are aware, most of the articles relating to the provinces and States are yet to come up for consideration and it is only right that Kashmir should have the opportunity to participate in the discussions which will finalise those articles.
I do not wish to say much more now. However, one small point I should like to clear up in view of one of the amendments of which notice has been given. It has been suggested that instead of Kashmir, we should substitute Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir no doubt describes the State better. But the reason why in this particular motion I have used the word Kashmir is that that word has been used in all statutory enactments and rules that have so far been framed in which this particular State has had to be mentioned.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General): I would like to know Sir, if the word ” Kashmir” includes or means both Jammu and Kashmir?
The Honourable Shri, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Kashmir means Jammu and Kashmir. In the Government of India Act, for instance, if you will look at the Schedule giving the names of the States, it will be found that this State is described as Kashmir. in the Draft Constitution, the Schedule mentions the State as Kashmir. In the list that is attached to the Constituent Assembly Rules, it is already described as Kashmir. So I think it would be best in these circumstances to use only the word ” Kashmir” and both the amendment and the word that I have used mean exactly the same thing. I would therefore, request honourable Members to let this description of the State as Kashmir stand, because if you change it, we shall have to change other things which are already in our Statues and Rules.
Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: May I interrupt the honourable Member? The motion contemplates that four seats will be allotted to Kashmir and that they will be returned to this Constituent Assembly. The honourable Member explained just now that the word “Kashmir” means, as in all other Statutes and Acts, Jammu and Kashmir. It is contemplated to have four representatives. I want to know whether it is contemplated to have these representative in such a way that Jammu and Ladakh are also represented by these nominees?
The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: ” Kashmir” in this motion means the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, the sovereignty over the whole of which still remains with the Government of that State. The idea is that four persons should be chosen who can be trusted to represent the interests of the whole State, not only Jammu and Ladakh, but I believe a person who can represent the interests of even the Mirpur-Jammu area– if the Prime Minister chooses to nominate him as being a person who can represent the interests of the State as a whole–it would not bar such a person being recommended by him. So really what we are contemplating to do is this. We do not recognise anything that might have happened as a result of the military operations which have recently been suspended. But what we really want is to bring into the Assembly persons who will represent the State as a whole. And the Prime Minister, the person who represents the Government as also the largest political party, he is in our opinion, the best person to make recommendations the Ruler who will nominate on such recommendation. Sir, at this stage, I do not wish to sat anything more. I move.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces: Muslim): Sir, I beg to oppose the motion and for good reasons, of you will allow me.
Mr. President: You can oppose it after the amendment have been moved. There are certain amendments of which notice has been received, and…………
Maulana Hasrat Mohani: Sir, will you allow me to express my opposition here and now? I do not want to wait for the amendment, because my opposition has nothing to do with the amendments.
Mr. President: I think we shall take the amendments to the motion, and then after the amendments have been moved, when the whole question is discussed, the Maulana may take his chance.
Mr. Kamath may move his amendment.
Shri H. V. Kamath (C. P. & Berar: General): My amendment being of a verbal nature, in view of what Mr. Ayyangar has said just now, I do not move the amendment, but I hope you will be so good ad to let me catch your eye later on, as I wish to speak on the motion.
Mr. President: I make no promise. Prof. Shah may move his amendment.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani: I have to point out that I want to oppose this motion in the sense that I so not want that you should allow the opportunity to move things at this stage.
Mr. President: You can oppose the motion at that stage. But at this stage, we shall take up the amendments first. They will be moved and after that, you can have your say.
Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar: General): Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, the word ‘all’ be deleted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, before the word ‘Kashmir’ wherever it occurs, the words ‘Jammu and, be inserted,”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, for the words ‘may be’ where they occur for the first time, the words ‘may’ pending the holding of a plebiscite, under the auspices of the United Nations’ Organisation, and without prejudice to the result of that plebiscite, be’ be substituted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, for the words ‘by nomination’ the words ‘by election by the Praja Sabha of the State of Jammu and Kashmir’ be substituted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, for the words ‘nominated’ the word ‘elected’ be substituted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, for the words ‘by the Ruler of the Kashmir on the advice of his Prime Minister’ be deleted.”
Mr. President, Sir, I am fully conscious of the seriousness and delicacy of the task I have taken upon myself in…..
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: May I request the honourable Mover of the amendment to read out to the House how the motion would read, after his amendments?
Prof. K. T. Shah: Yes, it will read thus:
“Notwithstanding anything in para. 4, the seats in the Assembly allotted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir may, pending the holding of a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations’ Organisation, and without prejudice to the results of that plebiscite, be filled by election by the Praja Sabha of Jammu and Kashmir and the representatives of the State to be chosen to fill such seats may be elected.”
I was saying Sir, that no one can be more aware of the seriousness and delicacy of the task I have taken upon myself in tabling this amendment, and in advancing arguments that I have to place before this House to convert it to my view-point. Being so aware of the gravity of this task and its delicateness, I assure, you, Sir, that I shall not use a single phrase or expression, nor gesture, nor tone which would, in any way in the least import passion or prejudice in the arguments. I am aware that this subject is coloured very deeply by lone-standing prejudice. I am aware, Sir, that there will be deep feeling on the matter, and therefore, so far as it lies in me, I assure you again, Sir, that I shall not use a single expression, nor one gesture which might give rise to any feeling unbecoming this House and unwarranted by the seriousness of the case.
Before I proceed to develop my arguments, Sir, may I in all humility, place before this House something like my credentials to speak on this subject.
Sir, I have been acquainted with Kashmir State and its governance for now something like fifteen or more years. I have known the principal parties concerned in this matter by first-hand knowledge and working with them. I have helped–in however small a way it may be,–to shape what is called the ‘new Kashmir’ from the day that it was in draft form, then the present Prime Minister was good enough to come down to Bombay and consult me on the matter for fifteen days. I had also the honour to be invited to be a Planning Adviser to the preceding Government of Kashmir, in connection with which I had to visit Kashmir State, study the situation and know its people, know its administration, from not merely the superficial tourist’s stand-point, but from the stand-point of a close student of affairs. A bookworm as i may be. I had some opportunity to know these first hand.
I have, perhaps to my own misfortune, been associated with this matter even after the developments of the last few years; and in the course of this argument, I shall try and place before you, Sir, certain considerations which I trust will show you, that if I say anything on the subject I am not saying it from merely superficial newspaper headline knowledge of the matter, but from some close study, close observation and personal knowledge of the subject with which we are dealing.
Sir, after this Preface let me now proceed to the amendment that I have suggested. I have, Sir, in the first place, suggested, that the word “all” be omitted. After all the definite article would remain; and that would include all, even without our using that expression. It, is however, not a merely drafting change that I am suggesting. There is, as you will perhaps see when I go on with the further development of my theme, three is some significance attached to the idea that the word “all” at any rate be omitted.
Sir, I have next suggested that the nomenclature be changed, and the State be described more correctly as the “State of Jammu and Kashmir.”
That is the official title of the State; and in an official document like this I do not see any reason why we should not give the correct description, the proper title of the State. It is once more, I assure you, Sir, not a mere matter of terminology, or nomenclature, or mere verbal emendation. As I shall show you, there is some significance in this matter, which makes it more then ever necessary that you should not omit the other part, and, it one may say so, the first part of the title of that ancient State.
By calling it the State of Kashmir only you are perpetrating or perpetuating an error, which according to the honourable the Mover, has apparently happened in all our documents. May I ask, Sir, if we have made a mistake in the first instance of we have been carried away by the importance of one section of the State, by the importance of the personages connected with that part of the State, is that any reason why we should forget the other and no less important part of the State, and in this formal document continue to perpetuate that mistake, and speak only of ” Kashmir”, when we really mean ” Jammu and Kashmir”?
It is admitted, Sir, it is common knowledge, it is a fact not denied by the honourable the Mover of this resolution, that that is the correct name of the State. And those at any rate who remember the campaign of the present Prime Minister of the State in connection with ‘Quit Kashmir’ will realise that in the sequence of events that have happened, it is liable, if you describe it in this manner, to be gravely misunderstood wherever such nomenclature is allowed to be used; and our public records will be disfigured to that extent.
Sir, as you will see later on here is a matter which is not, as my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath suggested, merely a matter of verbal change, There is a significance attached to it which I hope this House will realise as we go on. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is correctly described as Jammu and Kashmir because, so to say, there are two States in one Kingdom, just as Scotland and England were two States under the First of the Stuarts. The King was King James the Sixth of Scotland and King James the First of England. There were two ‘Crowns worn by one person. In regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir until about the communal rising of 1933, it was for all practical administrative purposes actually divided into two provinces more or less distinct, though under the same Ruler.
I trust I have said enough to demonstrate to the House that the matter o nomenclature in not merely a matter of verbal emendation; that it has behind it a significance, a significance, in the sequence of events, not confined only to this House or to this country. It has repercussions outside this country, as I will try to show later on; and, therefore, we must be very careful in every word that we use, so that our expression, our nomenclature, our whole wording is in conformity with the situation and the correct facts.
Next, Sir, I come to a very difficult and delicate matter, namely the suggestion that the election be, pending the holding of a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation and without prejudice………
Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Madras: General): I wish to raise a point o order, Sir, at this stage. The reference to the plebiscite and to the United Nations Organisation has nothing whatever to do with the representation proposed to be given to the Kashmir State in this motion. I think this amendment should be ruled out of order.
Mr. President: What has the honourable Member to say on the point of order?
Prof. K. T. Shah: If has been the declaration of the highest authority in India also that the accession of the State made by the Maharaja, who was the complete constitutional head on the day that that accession was agreed to, was subject to confirmation by the result of the plebiscite.
The Honourable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru (United Provinces: General): That is absolutely incorrect– cent per cent incorrect. I am amazed, surprised and astounded that such a statement is made by Professor Shah.
Prof. K. T. Shah: If i am wrong I am open to correction. We ourselves have accepted the United Nations decision to hold this plebiscite and an Administrator has been appointed. If I am in your hands.
Mr. President: The point is whether the accession was conditional. The accession, so far as I understand from the Prime Minister was unconditional and complete. The result of that accession may be altered as a result of the plebiscite, but the accession as such was complete and final. Therefore the question of the accession does not arise.
Prof. K. T. Shah: I am not for a moment suggesting that the representatives of Jammu and Kashmir should not come here; nothing of the kind.
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: The point of order that has been raised by Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya seems to by very pertinent, inasmuch as this resolution is the Constituent of the act of accession which the Government of India and the Constituent Assembly have accepted; and, therefore it is only in relation to that that we are here making provision for the representatives of Jammu and Kashmir to sit in our Assembly. It has absolutely nothing to do with the plebiscite. As the Prime Minister has Pointed out, the accession was complete and without any reservation on the part of the Maharaja. That the result of the accession may probably be upset by plebiscite has nothing whatever to do with the proposition we are considering now.
The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta (C. P. & Berar: General): I entirely agree that this part of the amendment is out of order. We have to see whether it has any bearing on the proposition. If it has no bearing on the main proposition the amendment must be ruled out of order. From the information that has been given by the Honourable the Prime Minister and from th information that you, Sir, were pleased to convey, it is clear that the accession of Kashmir was unconditional. Now when the accession was unconditional, the question of plebiscite has no bearing. The main proposition says that the seats in the Assembly allotted to the State of Kashmir shall be filled by nomination and the representative of the State to be chosen to fill such seats may be nominated by the Ruler. It place no time-limit; it places no condition. Such a condition cannot be placed because the accession was unconditional as we were just informed. By presuming a thing which is not in existence and which is not warranted by facts now brought to the notice of the House, I humbly submit that this amendment is surely out of order.
Mr. President: I am inclined to agree that the point raised by Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya is a solid and valid one. The accession of Kashmir was unconditional and what we are concerned with here is the representation of that State in this Assembly. When the plebiscite will take place and what the result of the plebiscite will be, we are not concerned with here. We are only concerned with the representation of the State in this House. The method suggested has found favour with the Mover. The honourable Member may move his amendment with regard to the method, but he cannot put down any condition with regard to the status of the Member who will be returned to this House. Those members will sit as any other Members without any condition being attached to their status or tenure. So that part of th amendment is ruled out of order.
Prof. K. T. Shah: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and therefore shall confine myself to the other part of the amendment, which naturally would suffer as much as it was an integral part of my argument. I shall nevertheless my and make the argument as much self-contained as I possibly can, notwithstanding the lopping off of a very integral part of my amendment.
The next amendment, Sir, suggests that the representatives be elected by the Praja Sabha of Jammu and Kashmir. Sir, it is an admitted fact that representation of the States is secured. as the honourable the Mover himself was pleased to declare, partly by election and partly by nomination by the Ruler. Moreover we have allowed nineteen months or more to elapse between the date of the accession and the present suggestion that the representatives may be chosen. I am aware, Sir, that there have been circumstances, there have been developments which have made if difficult, if not impossible, to secure the representation of Kashmir in this Assembly.
Wherever there were popular legislatures, they were allowed to elect half the number of representatives, the other half being nominated by the Ruler. Why should that salutary principle be departed from in this case? As the honourable the Mover himself said the Praja Sabha of Kashmir was elected in 1946-47 and, therefore, it is still within its normal life.
Sri R. K. Sidhva (C. P & Berar: General): Does it exit? What is its strength?
Prof. K. T. Shah: It may be that not all the members may be within the jurisdiction where the King’s writ runs. That, however, does not upset the technical position that the legislative body of Jammu and Kashmir exists, and that body has a right, according to the precedent which we have followed in these matters in the past, to elect at least half the number of representatives. I do not know why a departure should be made in the case of Kashmir alone.
Now in the original motion, the whole of the representatives of Kashmir are required to be nominated and that too nominated on the advice of the Prime Minister. We have taken it for granted that that Government or that authority represents the majority of the Kashmir population. That would have been of course evident had any new elections taken place. But circumstances have changed and the Nationalist party has come to power. The fact must be remembered by the House that the population of Kashmir and Jammu, put together, is something like 76 per cent Muslims and 24 per cent Hindus, including Dogras and other non-Muslims. It is for the House in its wisdom to decide whether, given this composition of the population given this course of events that have happened in the meanwhile, whether it is possible that the election could take place on a fair basis even while the frontier itself is in danger; and even while, though the ‘ cease-fire” has been declared, truce has not yet been signed and peace has not yet returned to the State. The danger to Kashmir, or rather the danger to India from any untoward happening in Kashmir is left more to the imagination of the House then any words of mine can describe.
While I am unwilling at this moment to complicate the issues in this manner, I should explain to the House the gravity of the consequences that may occur. I am bound to place before this House this question that if we depart from the practice of election, partly of election and partly of nomination by the ruler at his own will and not as is here required wholly by the ruler, on the advice of his Prime Minister, it is a matter for the House to say.
I realise, and I am prepared to say frankly to the House, that my amendment suggests not the same practice as was followed in the past with regard to the other States. I have been driven to suggest that is should be wholly election because of the extraordinary circumstances of the situation. Had the situation been in the State as normal and peaceful as in other cases, had the situation been uncomplicated by any third party intrusion in the matter, I would have certainly followed the same precedent; and required that at least part of the representatives in a proper form. But as the situation is there today, with all the complications that have arisen, all the representatives of the people must be elected. That is my submission. I am not asking too much when I say that we shall not be departing from democratic principles, or idea or justice, or prudence or wisdom in this matter if we say that the people of Kashmir, and the people of Kashmir alone, shall elect all the representatives to this House. If this party claims to represent the entire or at least a large majority of the people of Kashmir, then there is no reason to fear that they cannot send their representatives according to their wishes. They need not, therefore, shirk the suggestion I am making of calling upon the representatives to be elected and not nominated.
In this matter I am constrained to point but that the developments all along in the history of Jammu and Kashmir in the last three and a half years should not be overlooked. You must not overlook the agitation that was started in February 1946 whereby a responsible party or the leader or the responsible party had started a campaign of ‘Quit Kashmir’ and in consequence thereof events developed and created all the difficulties that have since ensued. I do not like this House to be a party to anything that might look as if it was a surrender to one man’s wishes, that nothing can be done until t he Maharaja is removed or complete power is handed over to him. Whether or not he holds the complete confidence of all the people of Kashmir has yet to be proved. I am aware that he may have a large following; but at the same time, it you want proof beyond the possibility of doubt, there is no season why you should not send invitation for an election even under the limited franchise that is prevailing. If you have adult franchise that would be better. But even under the limited franchise of 1946, if you hold an election you will get the true representatives of the people.
You must also not forget that have happened have invested the other countries and the sister Dominion and those outside with interest in the matter. That being so they will not take any decision unilaterally made by us, without demur. If you want to have peace restored, if you want to live in peace with your neighbours, you should not give needless occasion for them to say that here you are pursuing a design and committing an act and taking steps whereby your own declarations, and, what is more, whether interests the others may have, are being jeopardised. If that is going to be a slur on the good name of this country, and its claim to stand always for the people or for those who are oppressed, then I think it is not too much to demand the should be the true reflex of the people of Kashmir in all that they may be pleaded to say in this House as regards the interest of that State whenever that portion of the Constitution is reached.
Mr. President: Your amendment is that there should be a fresh election and that the Sabha should elect the representatives.
Prof. K. T. Shah: I only say that they should be elected.
Mr. President: You also say that the Sabha should send representatives. If so, how does the question of general election arise?
Prof. K. T. Shah: I say that they should be elected by the Sabha.
Mr. President: If it is the rump of the Sabha, what is the change?
Prof. K. T. Shah: I suggest that it would be better is they were elected by adult franchise. But that is not to be. If you want to get the true reflex of the popular opinion in Kashmir, then you should have that through the Praja Sabha which is the legislature of the State though it may be every unpleasant for us to do so.
Sir, in this connection I feel it my duty to place before the House one or two considerations. We only recorded last week the ratification of our closer association with the British Commonwealth. And if we now complete this act, the two events together carry their own significance.
Secondly I would like the people in this House to realise that the position of Kashmir as it is……….
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: May I know from the honourable Mover of the amendment then the elections to the Sabha took place?
Prof. K. T. Shah: In November or December 1946.
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: Was there snowfall in Kashmir at that time?
Prof. K. T. Shah: I do not know that. The elections are held in winter.
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: The present Prime Minister was then in prison.
Prof. K. T. Shah: He was not the Prime Minister then. He was in prison.
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: Where are the present members of the Sabha?
Prof. K. T. Shah: I do not know that. You must ask th post-office in Kashmir.
Shri R. K. Sidhva: Does the honourable Member know whether the Praja Sabha exists now, where it exists, what its strength is, where the members are?
Prof. K. T. Shah: The Praja Sabha should know the addresses of its members. Whether the members can collect together or not I do not know. The members may be available or may not be available. As least a quorum may be available to constitute a meeting of the Praja Sabha, if you want to consult the Praja Sabha, if you want to know the opinion of the people of Kashmir. If you do not want, then this motion may be passed.
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: Is the honourable Member aware that some or most of the members of the Praja Sabha have gone over to Pakistan and those that remain are working for Pakistan? Is he aware of it?
Prof. K. T. Shah: I am not aware. Some have gone.
Mr. President: It will save time if there is no interruption.
Prof. K. T. Shah: I thought I should answer questions put by honourable Members, but I will ignore questions in future.
Two or there more points I would like to place before the House. First, I would like the House to remember the composition of the population of Kashmir, its geographical position, its connection and the possibilities that may happen there. I think the House is aware that we have spent so far something like one hundred crores on Kashmir. What are we getting in return? We have spent–I do not know–how many lives in Kashmir. We are still not out of the wood to the extent that normal conditions, and perfect peace have been restored and normal constitutional progress may be resumed.
The Honourable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: I strongly protest against the remarks made by the honourable Member. Here we are not discussing the future of Kashmir.
Mr. President: We are discussing only the resolution. The honourable Member is not justified in making remarks on subjects which are not covered by the resolution.
Prof. K. T. Shah: I submit, Sir, that I would not go into those questions. I will not make even those remarks. I will only conclude by saying that this is a very serious matter. The House must bear in mind….
An Honourable Member: What do you mean by serious?
Prof. K. T. Shah: I cannot tell you what is serious, how it is serious.
Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United Provinces: General): The serious thing is that the honourable Member is so ignorant about Kashmir that he even does not know who and where the members of the Praja Sabha are.
Prof. K. T. Shah: The mater is of sufficient importance for the House to take all the aspects of it into consideration and then come to a decision on it Sir, I move.
Mr. President: Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena.
Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena(United Provinces: General): I am not moving my amendment, Sir.
Mr. President: We may now take up the discussion of the motion and the amendments.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, Sir, there can be no two opinions in this House that we are all jubilant that very shortly representatives from want is in the words of our Prime Minister the Lovely land of Kashmir, the beauty of which persists in the midst of much spoliation and desecration, will take their seats in this august House. The importance of the subject that we are discussing today cannot be over-estimated. My Friend, Professor Shah, first moved his amendment seeking to substitute. “Jammu and Kashmir” for “Kashmir”. May I point out to him that after what was said about this matter by the Honourable Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar, the amendment reduces itself to merely one of a drafting character. The Honourable Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar assured us that though the word “Kashmir” only was used, what was meant was the whole State. If Professor Shah takes the trouble of turning to Part III of the First Schedule of the Draft Constitution, he will find that this State is referred to as merely Kashmir/ After this, there is no scope, there is no justification for the amendment moved by Professor Shah. To my mind, some points arise in connection with the motion moved by the Honourable Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar and I would request that in his reply he may kindly throw some light on them. Firstly, we have not been told–at any rate I did not hear–how many members or representatives from this State will be nominated by the Ruler on the advice of the Premier to take their seats in this House.
The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: I mentioned four.
Shri H. V. Kamath: I am sorry I did not hear that. The number of members is four. i hope we will stick to the population figures that were returned at the last census. In this connection the point arises whether not merely Jammu and Kashmir but also Ladakh–I mean the entire territory including Mirpur and Poonch, will be represented. The Honourable Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar said that till a few months ago the situation in Kashmir was somewhat fluid, but now it is being stabilised. It is very happy news for us, very welcome news. There is every reason for gratification that the situation is getting fast stabilised. There have been divergent rumours and reports in the press about certain areas in Kashmir formerly held by Pakistan and what was wrongly called the Azad Kashmir forces. The resolution of the U.N.C.I.P………
Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: Sir, may I draw your attention to the fact that this sort of remarks may be considered as out of order. We are not discussing the whole gamut of Kashmir.
Mr. President: I was just going to draw his attention to the fact that this sort of remarks is wholly irrelevant. We are now only concerned with the sending of four representatives of this House from Kashmir.
Shri H. V. Kamath: I bow to your ruling. I will not dilate on that point any further. I will take the next point and that is the composition of the representation from Kashmir to this Assembly. I was never at any time in my life for separate electorates. I never supported at any time separate electorates which have been the basis on which elections in this country and even on this House were held. We are all very well aware that under the Cabinet Mission Scheme members were elected to this House on the basis of separate electorates. I was very unhappy when that took place. I hoped at that time that that situation would come to an end very soon. Only yesterday we completed the task which we began sometime last year or a few months before that, that is to say the work which we began eighteen or twenty-one months ago, by reason of which we did away with separate electorates.
Mr. President: There is no question of separate electorate in this.
Shri H. V. Kamath: I am coming to that point. The point was referred to by Prof. Shah about the population in Kashmir, about how many Hindus are there, how many Muslims and how many Sikhs. From every province they elected members to this House in July 1946, The basis of representation was one member per million of the population, of he province or state, that is to say for a province like C. P. and Berar which had 160 lakhs of non-Muslims and about 10 or 12 lakhs of Muslims there were 16 non-Muslims of Hindus sent to this House and one Muslim. Here the population of this State which will shortly be represented in this House, is, I believe about 10 lakhs or thereabout of Hindus and the rest Muslim. In conformity with the decision which we have adopted only yesterday and during the last few months, I for one, would be happy if for this new nomination we die away with the separate outlook. I would welcome if the whole of Jammu and Kashmir were represented by all Hindus, if necessary, or all Muslims, provided you get the best men available on the spot. I hope that considerations of communal representation will not guide or affect the matter of nomination of these representatives from Kashmir to this House. That would be completely in conformity with the stand that we have been taken, the decision we have taken in this House on this matter of separate electorates.
Mr. President: May I point out that so far as the representation of the States in this House is concerned, there has never been any question of representation by communities. So far as the States are concerned, all the members who have here come here irrespective of the community to which they belong, unlike the members of the provinces. Therefore, that question does not Aires here.
Shri H. V. Kamath: As we were elected under the Cabinet Mission Scheme, I hope there would be one policy, one method adopted for representation of all the States and I hope that in the case of Kashmir, there would not be departure from the method adopted for the States, in contradistinction to the provinces.
Then, Sir, there is one other point, which I would like the honourable Mover of the motion to clarify when the time comes. In the last November–December session of this Assembly, I raised a point when the rules were being amended, as to whether and when all the States that are still unrepresented in this House will be duly and suitably represented. This is the last session, to my mind, of the Constituent Assembly and the most important one for that reason: and we would have been very happy indeed if the whole of India with all the State who have integrated with it or acceded to it, were represented in this Assembly.
Dr. P. K. Sen (Bihar: General): On a point of order, Sir, the honourable Member is again digressing and his remarks do not bear upon the motion at all.
Mr. President: I am inclined to think that reference to other States is unnecessary and irrelevant.
Shri H. V. Kamath: I thought that Kashmir as a State which has acceded to the Indian Union was on a per with other State which have acceded to the Indian Union, and in that light i was going to…..
Mr. President: So far as I am aware all the States which have acceded have already come in except Bhopal and Kashmir. As far as Hyderabad is concerned, I do not know in what stage of accession it is, but so far as the other States, about whose accession there is no doubt, they have all come in except kashmir and Bhopal and steps are being taken today to bring in Kashmir.
Shri H. V. Kamath: As far as Hyderabad is concerned…..
Mr. President: That question does arise now. It is not necessary; I shall inform myself later on.
Shri H. V. Kamath: The Home Minister, Sardar Patel, told us last Budget session about the position as regards Hyderabad, and as Kashmir is naturally on a par with other States that have acceded to the Indian Union. I only hoped–I do not insist– that all the States that have acceded to the Indian Union would be represented in this House.
Shri R. K. Sidhva: The matter of sending representatives to this Assembly is a simple one. Why extraneous matter is brought in by the honourable Member, I fail to understand.
The Honourable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: The honourable Member is a master of irrelevancy. He does not quite understand what has happened. Nearly all the States which have acceded are represented hare except Kashmir.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, You yourself said that Bhopal has acceded and still is not represented here. I do not know whether I am irrelevant or somebody is forgetful. Here, Sir, I have got a tabular statement where to total number of members present in this House at present is given Mr. President: What is the point?
Shri H. V. Kamath: Sir, I only wanted to say that still there are twenty-one members to take their seats in this House and I hope that steps would be taken early to see that all these 21 members including those from the States of Jammu and Kashmir will take their seats in this House during this very important session. I wonder whether the interruptions were at all necessary. I was not going to dilate any further, and I am sorry if the Prime Minister misunderstood the trend of my argument, and thought fit to interrupt me. There is one last point, Sir, and I have done. I do not know why the Prime Minister is getting impatient.
The Honourable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: Depressed.
Shri H. V. Kamath: I would try to cheer him before I end my little speech. The last point is this. (Interruption). Mr. Balkrishna Sharma will have his chance, I hope.
Mr. President: What is the point?
Shri H. V. Kamath: The last point is this. In yesterday’s issue of an important Daily of this city, there was a report that the Maharaja of Kashmir was going on a short holiday and somebody else would act as Regent. I hope, Sir, that this resolution which we are going to pass today will be implemented by the Ruler of Kashmir on the advice of his Prime Minister before he leaves the State on a short holiday.
Lastly, I would have been happy if the person referred to as the Prime Minister here has been designated otherwise. There is only on Prime Minister in India. I am told there was a recent circular issued to all provinces–I do either as Chief Ministers or as Premiers and that the title Prime Minister should be reserved only for the Prime Minister of the Indian Union. Therefore, I would have been happy if the Honourable Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, who moved this motion, had used the term ” Premier” in place of Prime Minister”, because I feel that it conflicts with the circular issued by the Government of India to all the provinces quite lately.
These are the points which I hope the mover of the motion would clarify in his reply to the debate. i hope we will be able to welcome our friends from Kashmir in this House at a very early date.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani: Sir, I am not opposing this motion of Mr. Ayyangar on the ground that it wants the Kashmir representatives to be nominated, nor on the ground that some of my honourable Friends have tabled amendments, some wanting that 50 per cent. Should be elected and 50 per cent nominated. I do not care whether cent. per cent. are elected or nominated. But what I object to is this. I do not know, of course; but I do not see any necessity for sending any Kashmir representatives to this Constituent Assembly at this stage. Pandit Nehru got angry because he says that this accession has been complete and there is no doubt about that. He says that Kashmir has acceded to India and therefore they have every right to ask for their representatives to be sent hare to this Constituent Assembly. While I need not quarrel on that subject, I have to ask a question from my Friend, Mr. Ayyangar. I accept this contention of the Prime Minister that this accession has been complete although I am doubtful whether he is absolutely right in this. Because, he himself not once or twice, but many times, has said that this accession depends on the final decision of the plebiscite, of the votes of the Kashmir people. Of course, now, he has made up his mind; he has created difficulties and his move is that this plebiscite will never take place and therefore he says that this accession is complete and there is no doubt about it. Even admitting that, I ask Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar why he should anticipate the decision of the Government of India and why should he come forward at this stage to propose this thing. I say, why at this stage. Because, generally we find that in all those States which have acceded to India, invariably the Rulers of those States, have been pensioned off and the administration has been taken over by the Indian Government or some provincial Government of India. I do not know what is in the mind of the Prime Minister or the Government of India, as to what will be that status of the kashmir Government. After accession, will be also be pensioned off and the administration of Kashmir taken over by the Government of India? Is that so? Then, I say that this thing has not yet been decided and if this has not yet been decided, then, I think that there is no status for the Maharaja of Kashmir for the present and therefore this question of his nominating representatives for the Constituent Assembly does not arise. I say that the whole thing is premature. Unless and until you decide the status of the Kashmir Government and the status of the Maharaja, it is hopelessly absurd to set down any proposal of this kind. It is on this ground that I totally object to this motion. I think he should not be allowed to move such a motion at this stage.
The Honourable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: Sir, this very simple motion of my honourable colleague has led some members of refer to almost all connected matters, not with this motion, but in regard to Kashmir, and so we have been led to think of this vast and intricate and difficult problem of Kashmir. It is a little difficult in this context to confine oneself to the simple proposition that has been placed before the House. Nevertheless, I do not intend to go beyond that proposition; not do I think need this House to beyond it although several members may be tempted to do so.
The proposition before the House is a very simple one. Now, I say that I have a vast admiration for the erudition an learning of Professor Shah. Nevertheless, I have followed with some surprise not only what he has said today, but what he has and done in regard to kashmir for a number of years. I have been also connected with Kashmir in many ways and, in a sense, I belong to Kashmir more particularly than to any part of India. I have been connected with the fight for freedom in Kashmir and I know about the various groups, various people, various individuals from the Maharaja down to number folk there. And so, if I venture to say anything in this House, I do so with far greater authority than Prof. Shah can presume to have on the subject. I speak not as the Prime Minister, but as a Kashmiri and an Indian who has been connected with these matter. It amazed me to hear Prof. Shah propose that the so-called Praja Sabha of Kashmir should send representatives to this House. If Prof. Shah knows anything about Kashmir, he should know that there is nothing more bogus than the Praja Sabha in Kashmir. He ought to know that the whole circumstances under which the last elections were held were fantastic and farcical. He ought to know that it was boycotted by all decent people in Kashmir. It was held in the depth of winter, to avoid people going to the polling booths. And winter in Kashmir is something of which probably Members in this House have no conception of. An honourable Member asked me about winter, and whether it was snowing. But when it snows in a cold country, it is called warm weather. In winter it is 20 to 30 degrees below snowing weather. The election was held when the roads ware impassable, when the passes could not be crossed; in fact, it was just not possible for the voters to go. But apart from that, when the National Conference of Kashmir, in spite of difficulties, difficulties including that of their leaders being in prison, including Sheikh Abdullah and other, in spite of all that, when they decided to contest these elections, then their candidates were arrested, many of them, and all kinds of obstacles ware put in; and it was quite clear that they would not be allowed to stand. So they decided to boycott it and they did boycott it, with the result that the whole national movement of Kashmir boycotted those elections, just as the national movement in 1920 boycotted elections in India. And it was and amazingly successful boycott. Of course people got in. By boycotting you cannot keep another man out; but the percentage of voting was so very small–I forget the exact fraction–it was almost negligible; and the type of people who got in were the type who had opposed the freedom movement throughout, who had done every injury possible to the idea of the freedom of Kashmir till then. And subsequently some o them, when Kashmir adopted this new status and became much freer than it ever was, they subsequently sought refuge in Pakistan. Now that is the kind of body referred to; it is a bogus body; it is really no body at all. It is a disembodied spirit. It does not meet. It does not do anything and many of its members are not just traceable. And now Prof. Shah calmly, tells that the Praja Sabha can elect Members to this honourable House; it is a monstrous proposition.
I admit that it is not desirable for any Members of this House to come by nomination or be selected by some narrow process; but unfortunately many of us here, from the States I means, have not come exactly as we should have liked them to come. They have been sent, partly by nomination, partly by election, by election again, by bodies which are not often properly constituted; but we had to take things as they were, and we wanted them here to help us in this work of constitution-making. So though the process suggested for Kashmir is not ideal, yet I do think that it is a process than has been adopted in regard to many States in India. It is a process where you get a popular government with the representative of the popular party at the head of it, recommending to the Ruler that certain names should go. Even from the point of view of democracy, that is not an incorrect process. It is not 100 per cent. correct; but the House should see what better method you can suggest. I can understand Maulana Hasrat Mohani, and I am inclined to agree with him that it would have been–if I heard hem correctly–it would have been better and more graceful for us to have had the representatives of Kashmir here much earlier. But we did not do it. It was our fault, may be it was other people’s fault; but whatever the reason, we did not do it. It was our fault, may is that a reason why we should continue the error in the future? During the next two or three months, or however long this House meets, when we are going to finalise this Constitution, it is desirable for us to give every opportunity to the representatives of the Kashmir State and of any other State, to come here and participate, even though they have not done so up to this stage. So I submit that the motion moved by Mr. Ayyangar i the only way out of this difficulty.
I would suggest to him and beg of him to accept a small change in the wording of the motion. What he has put down is perfectly correct, he has put down “Kashmir”, as it occurs in the various Acts, etc. He has taken it naturally from these enactments. But because there is a slight confusion in people’s minds, it would be better to describe it a little more fully as “Kashmir State” and then putting within brackets, the words “otherwise known as the State of Kashmir and Jammu”. No doubt, so far as the proposition that people should be entitled to come from Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, I think it is up to us to give them every opportunity to do so. And secondly, so far as the method is concerned, I can think if no other, and no fairer method than what has been proposed in this motion.
Shri T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar (Madras: General): Sir, the question may now be put.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That the question be now put.”
I take it that that is the wish of the House.
The motion was adopted.
The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Sir, I have really little to say. But I think a few words have to be said about one or two observations that were made by my honourable Friend, Maulana Hasrat Mohani. He doubted whether the Prime Minister’s description of this accession as being complete is altogether correct. I maintain that it is perfectly correct. The accession was offered by the Maharaja and it was accepted by the Governor General of the time. I have a copy of that document before me. It is an absolutely unconditional offer. But my honourable Friend referred to what has happened since and I know my other honourable Friend Prof. Shah also seemed to imply what the Maulana contended. Now the correct position is this. The accession is complete. No doubt, we have offered to have a plebiscite taken when the conditions are created for the holding of a proper, fair and impartial plebiscite. But that plebiscite is merely for the purpose of giving the people of the State the opportunity of expressing their will, and the expression of their will, will be only in the direction of whether they would ratify the accession that has already taken place–not ratify in the sense that that act of ratification is necessary for the completion of the accession, but if the plebiscite produces a verdict which is against the continuance of accession to India of the Kashmir State, then that we are committed to is simply this, that we shall not stand in the way of Kashmir separating herself away from India. In this connection, should like to draw the attention of the House to the Provisions of the Indian Independence Act under which, when a State accedes and subsequently wishes to get out of the act of accession, thus separating itself from the main Dominion, it cannot do so except with the consent of the Dominion. Our commitment is simply this, that if and when a plebiscite comes to be taken and if the verdict of that plebiscite is against Indian, then we shall not stand in the way of the wishes of the people of Kashmir being given effect to, if they want to go away from us. That is all that it means. So I maintain that the statement that the accession at present is complete is a perfectly correct description of the existing state of things.
Then he asked why should representative be brought in at this stage. We are not bringing them into House for the purpose of placing there seal on the act of accession. We are giving them an opportunity for the exercise of the rights which they have obtained by virtue of the fact then accession has already taken place. We are making a new constitution which affects not merely the Union as a whole but affects the units of the Union and Kashmir, on account of the fact of accession, is at present a unit of that Union. In fashioning the constitution for the whole Union it is only right that representatives of all units should find seats in this Assembly.
I think I need to reply at length to my honourable Friend Prof. Shah’s objections. They have been dealt with already by the Honourable the Prime Minister. I would only say this. There has been a delay no doubts Prof. Shah seemed to suggest that the cease fire took place some months ago and he could not understand why this step was not taken immediately after. A cease fire only suspends military operations and takes some time before things settle down sufficiently for us to see our way through. I believe I am correct in saying that the first meeting of this Constituent Assembly as a constitution-making body after the cease fire suspended military operations and things began to settle down is the present one. I do not think we can be convicted of delay in bringing this proposition forward at this meeting.
I do not think I need reply to the other points in his speech but there is one amendment of which he has given notice and has pressed which I should deal with. He wants the omission of the Word “all” in paragraph 4-A. The word “all” was put in deliberately, because in the present rules there is provision for a certain proportion of the number of seats being nominated to by the Ruler himself without reference to anybody else. Now what we are suggesting is that not merely a proportion but all the seats should be nominated by the Ruler and in doing so he should be guided by the advice of his Prime Minister. That is the only reason why the word “all” has been put in there. I think there is no harm in retaining the word.
As to the other amendment which he has proposed to the word “Kashmir” the Prime Minister has already suggested that we might perhaps make this clear. I would, with your permission, Sir, be willing to propose an amendment to the effect that after the words “State-of Kashmir” the following words shall be inserted within brackets “otherwise known as the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. If that is acceptable to the House my motion may be passed in that amended form.
There is only one other point to which I need make any reference at all and that is the one raised by my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath. He seemed rather perturbed by the use of the expression “Prime Minister” in this connection. He would rather like the word “Premier” to be substituted. Unfortunately here I am unable to comply with his suggestion, because the head of the Council of Minister and so long as that is there we have got to respect the expression that is used in the Kashmir Constitution.
Perhaps I might also refer to the other point, namely election by the people, which my honourable Friend Prof. Shah suggested. General elections directly by the people are not possible in the present condition of Kashmir. But if his suggestion was that, even on the limited franchise that was in force before, we could do something in this direction, that also would mean a general election of the purpose of getting together a Praja Sabha and such election are not possible today. So, my contention is that there can be no direct election of these representatives of the people under the present conditions of Kashmir and those elections will have to be held even if you have to find a new Praja Sabha. The be course in the circumstances is the one I have suggested.
I hope the House will carry this motion.
Mr. President: The suggestion which has been made by the Honourable Prime Minister has been accepted by the mover, viz., that after the words “State of Kashmir” within brackets the words “otherwise known as the State of Jammu and Kashmir” be inserted in the original proposition, If that is accepted by the House, then I shall take up the other amendments.
The question is:
“That after the words ‘State of Kashmir’ in the proposed paragraph 4-A, the following words within brackets be inserted, viz., ‘otherwise known as the State of Jammu and Kashmir”.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, the word ‘all’ be deleted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, before the word ‘Kashmir’ wherever it occurs, the words ‘Jammu and’ be inserted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, for the words ‘by nomination’ the words ‘by election by the Praja Sabha of the State of Jammu and Kashmir’ be substituted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, for the word ‘nominated’ the word ‘elected’ be substituted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, the words ‘by the Ruler of Kashmir on the advice of his Prime Minister’ be deleted.”
The amendment were negatived.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That after paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Constituent Assembly Ruler, the following paragraph be inserted, namely:-
‘4-A, Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 4, all the seats in the Assembly allotted to the State of Kashmir (otherwise as the State of Jammu and Kashmir) may be filled by nomination and the representatives of the State to be chosen to fill such seats may be nominated by the Ruler of Kashmir on the advice of his Prime Minister.'”
The motion was adopted.
DRAFT CONSTITUTION–(Conted.) * Article 104 The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (Bombay: General): Sir, I would request that article 104 be postponed.
* Article 105 Mr. President: Then I shall proceed to article 105.
(Amendment Nos. 1879 and 1880 were not moved.) Mr. President: The question is:
“That article 105 stand part of the Constitution.”
The motion was adopted.
Article 105 was added to the Constitution.
* Article 106 Mr. President: Article 106 (Amendment Now. 1881 and 1882 were not moved.) Mr. President: There is an amendment to this amendment. Since the main amendment is not moved I suppose this amendment drops.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachri (Madras: General): It is covered by amendment No. 1883 to which I shall move my amendment.
Mr. President: So much the better.
Tajamul Husain (Bihar: Muslim): Sir, may I with your permission move this amendment for Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad?
Mr. President: Yes.
Tajamul Husain: Sir, I move:
“That in clause (1) of article 106 after the words ‘High Court’ where they occur for the second time, the words ‘duty qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court be inserted.”
It at any time there is no quorum of the Judges of the Supreme Court to hold a Session, the Chief Justice may consult the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned and ask him to attend the sitting of the High Court as an ad hoc Judge for such period as may be found necessary for the Judge of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India. No argument is necessary. The Judge who sits as an ad hoc Judge in the Supreme Court must be duly qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court: otherwise he cannot sit.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: Sir, I shall with your leave move amendment No. 124 in List VI. Sir, I move:
“That with reference to amendment No. 1883 of the List of Amendments, in clause (1) of article 106, after the words ‘Chief Justice may’ the words ‘with the previous consent of the President and’ be inserted.”
The wording of this amendment is fairly simple as the House will understand that article 106 provides for the appointment of ad hoc Judges by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and sit in any of the Benches constituted by him to decide any particular case. Well, the article as it now stands means that the Chief Justice can do it without any reference to the Government of the day. I think, Sir, that the position is not quite as it ought to be for the reason that while the appointment of any of the Judge of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Judge, is done by the Executive, and addition to the Court should not be made without any reference to the Executive whatever. Of course, there are administrative and financial problems that might arise by the Chief Justice making a request to any of the High Court Judges of any State to co-operate with him in this manner, and even the propriety of the occasion demands that the Chief Justice should not act except in consultation with the head of the Executive. Therefore, Sir, I have moved that the words “with the consent of the President” should be put in. Actually, it will not be a very difficult matter to obtain his consent, as in most cases it will be a formal matter. Also, there is this safeguard, namely, there are occasions when the Supreme Court has decided matters which have a political flavour. The possibility of any political bias being exercised by the Chief Justice in the matter of the selection of an ad hoc Judge to help to decide any particular case can also be partly obviated by this safeguard. The history of the Judiciary in America has been almost a history of how politics has influenced the attitude of the judiciary. Any student of the American Constitution would know that politics has influenced to a vary large extent the decisions in constitutional cases by the Supreme Court of America. There is undoubtedly need for a safeguard for providing that the Executive shall have some say in a matter like this and if they really feel that the selection of a particular Judge is not proper, it is probable that the attention of the Chief Justice might be invited to that particular aspect of the matter.
It is not merely to provide against a contingency like one I have mentioned but also to conform to the proprieties involved in a matter like this that I have moved this amendment. I hope the House will have no difficulty in accepting it. Sir, I move:
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I accept the two amendment–No. 124 of List No. VI and amendment No. 1883.
Mr. President: There have been two amendments moved. Both have been accepted by Dr. Ambedkar. I will now put them to the vote.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That with reference to amendment No. 1883 of the List of Amendments, in clause (1) of article 106, after the words ‘Chief Justice may’ the words ‘with the previous consent of the President and’ be inserted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in clause (1) of article 106, after the words ‘High Court where they occur for the second time, the words ‘duty qualified for appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court’ be inserted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That article 106, as amended, stand part of the Constitution.”
The motion was adopted.
Article 106, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
* Article 107 Mr. President: Amendment No. 1884. This is a negative amendment. So I rule it out.
Amendment No. 1885. That question has been decided. So this need not be moved.
Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor: I am not moving amendment No. 1886 as there is another amendment on the same lines.
Mr. President: Amendment No. 1887 is more or less a verbal amendment. So it need not be moved.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I beg to move:
“That in article 107 the words ‘subject to the provisions of this article’ be deleted.”
Those words are quite unnecessary.
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari: I move:
“That in article 107, in line 3, after the words ‘at any time’. the words ‘with the previous consent of the President’ be inserted.’ Sir, the purpose of this amendment is much the same as that of the amendment moved by me to the earlier article and accepted by the house. This article deals with the attendance of retired judge in the sittings of the Supreme Court. For the reasons mentioned by me earlier it will be necessary for the Chief Justice to obtain the previous consent of the President, before inviting any such person to act as a Judge of the supreme Court.
(Amendments Nos. 1889 and 1890 were not moved.) Mr. President: We have now the amendments and the article for discussion.
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I accept amendment 125 moved by Shri T. T. Krishnamachari.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in article 107, in line 3, after the words ‘at any time’, the words ‘with the previous consent of the President’ be inserted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That in article 107 the words ‘subject to the provisions of this article’ be deleted.”
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. President: The question is:
“That article 107, as amendment, stand part of the Constitution.”
The motion was adopted.
Article 107, as amended, was added to the Constitution.
* Article 108 Mr. President: Article 108 is for the consideration of the House.
Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, I move:
“That for article 108, the following be substituted:-
‘108. The Supreme Court shall sit at such place or places as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the President, from time to time appoint.'”

KASHMIR RESOLUTION
Resolution 80 (1950) concerning the India-Pakistan question, submitted by the representatives of Cuba, Norway, United Kingdom and United States and adopted by the Security Council on March 14, 1950
(Document no. S/1469, dated 14 March, 1950)
THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Having received and noted the reports of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan establishing its resolutions 39 (1948) of 20 January and 47 (1948) of 21 April 1948.
Having also received and noted the report of General A. G. L. McNaughton on the outcome of his discussions with the representatives of India and Pakistan which were initiated in pursuance of the decision taken by the Security Council on December 17, 1949.
Commending the Governments of India and Pakistan for their statesman like action in reaching the agreements embodied in the United Nations Commission’s resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949 for a cease-fire, for the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the determination of its final disposition in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, and commending the parties in particular for their action in partially implementing these Resolutions by :
(1) The cessation of hostilities effected January 1, 1949,
(2) The establishment of a cease-fire line on July 27, 1949, and
(3) The agreement that Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz shall be Plebiscite Administrator.
Considering that the resolution of the outstanding difficulties should be based upon the substantial measure of agreement of fundamental principles already reached, and that steps should be taken forthwith for the demilitarisation of the State and for the expeditious determination of its future in accordance with the freely expressed will of the inhabitants,
1. Calls upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to make immediate arrangements, without prejudice to their rights or claims and with due regard to the requirements of law and order, to prepare and execute within a period of five months from the date of this resolution a programme of demilitarisation on the basis of the principles of paragraph 2 of General McNaughton proposal or of such modifications of those principles as may be mutually agreed;
2. Decides to appoint a United Nations Representative for the following purposes who shall have authority to perform his functions in such place or places as he may deem appropriate;
(a) to assist in the preparation and to supervise the implementation of the programme of demilitarisation referred to above and’ to interpret the agreements reached by the parties for demilitarisation;
(b) to place himself at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan and to place before those Governments or the Security Council any suggestions which, in his opinion, are likely to contribute to the expeditious and enduring solution of the dispute which has arisen between the two Governments in regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
(c) to exercise all of the powers and responsibilities devolving upon the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan by reason of existing resolutions of the Security Council and by reason of the agreement of the parties embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Commission of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949;
(d) to arrange at the appropriate stage of demilitarisation for the assumption by the Plebiscite Administrator of the functions assigned to the latter under agreements made between the parties;
(e) to report to the Security Council as he may consider necessary, submitting his conclusions and any recommendations which he may desire to make;
3. Requests the two Governments to take all necessary precautions to ensure that (heir agreements regarding the cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed, and “calls upon them to take all possible measures to ensure the creation and maintenance of ‘in atmosphere favourable to the
promotion of further negotiations;
4. Extends its best thanks to the members of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and to General A. G. L. McNaughton for their arduous and fruitful labours.
5. Agrees that the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan shall be (terminated, and decides that this shall take place one month after both parties have informed the United Nations Representative of their acceptance of the transfer to him the powers and responsibilities of the
United Nations Commission referred to in paragraph 2 (c) above.

Adopted by 8 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (India and Yugoslavia)

(Source UN Document no. S/1469; Res. 80 (1950)

Resolution adopted at the 5339th meeting of the Security Council on 30 March, 1951

THE SECURITY COUNCIL,

Having received and noted the report of Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan on his mission initiated by the Security Council resolution 80 (1950) of March 14, 1950.
Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the provisions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, and have re-affirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
Observing that on 27 October, 1950, the General Council of the “All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference” adopted a resolution recommending the convening of a Constituent Assembly for the
purpose of determining the “future shape and affiliations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir”; observing further from statements of responsible authorities that action is proposed to convene such
a Constituent Assembly and that the area from which such a Constituent Assembly would be elected is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47 (1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and the
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with
the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the “All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference” and any action that Assembly might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.
Declaring its belief that it is the duty of the Security Council in carrying out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security to aid the parties to reach an amicable solution of the Kashmir dispute and that a prompt settlement of this dispute is of vital importance to the maintenance of international peace and security.
Observing from Sir Owen Dixon’s report that the main points of difference preventing agreement between the parties were:
(a) The procedure for and the extent of demilitarisation of the State preparatory to the holding of a plebiscite, and
(b) The degree of control over the exercise of the functions of Government in the State necessary to ensure a free and fair plebiscite.
(1) Accepts, in compliance with his request, Sir Owen Dixon’s resignation and expresses its gratitude to Sir Owen Dixon’s resignation and expresses its gratitude to Sir Owen for the great ability and devotion with which he carried out his mission;
(2) Decides to appoint a United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in succession to Sir Owen Dixon;
(3) Instructs the United Nations Representative to proceed to the sub-continent and, after consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan, to effect the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan
resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and, 5 January, 1949;
(4) Calls upon the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Representative to the fullest degree in effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
(5) Instructs the United Nations Representatives to report to the Security Council within three months from the date of his arrival on the sub-continent; if at the time of this report, he has not effected demilitarisation in accordance with paragraph three above, or obtained the agreement of the
parties to a plan for effecting such demilitarisation, the United Nations Representative shall report to the Security Council those points of difference between the parties in regard to the interpretation and execution of the agreed resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, which he considers must be resolved to enable such demilitarisation to be carried out;
(6) Calls upon the parties, in the event of their discussions with the United Nations Representative failing in his opinion to result in full agreement, to accept arbitration upon all outstanding points of difference reported by the United Nations representative in accordance with paragraph five above. Such arbitration to be carried ‘out by an arbitrator, or a panel of arbitrators, to be appointed by the President of the International Court of Justice after consultation with the parties;
(7) Decides that the Military Observer Group shall continue to supervise the cease-fire in the State;
(8) Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to ensure that their cement regarding the cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed and calls them to take all possible measures to ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations and to refrain from any likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement;
(9) Requests the Secretary-General to provide the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan with such services and facilities as may be necessary in carrying out the terms of this resolution.
Adopted by 8 votes to none with 3 abstentions (India, Union of Soviet Social Republics, Yugoslavia)

(Source: Res. 91 (1951); UN Document no. S/S/2017/Rev.1)

Resolution Adopted at the 566th Meeting of the Security Council on 10th November, 1951

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Having received and noted the report of Dr. Frank Graham, the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan, on his mission initiated by the Security Council resolution 91(1951) of 30 March, 1951, and having heard Dr. Graham’s address to the Council of 18 October, 1951.
Noting with approval the basis for a programme of demilitarisation which could be carried out in conformity with the previous undertakings of the parties, put forward by the United Nations Representative in his communication of 7 September, 1951, to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan.
1. Notes with gratification the declared agreement of the two parties to those parties of Dr. Graham’s proposals which reaffirm their determination to work for a peaceful settlement, their will to observe the cease-fire agreement and their acceptance of the principle that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be determined by a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations;
2. Instructs the United Nations Representative to continue his efforts to obtain agreement of the parties on a plan for effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
3. Calls upon the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Representative to lie fullest degree in his efforts to resolve the outstanding points of difference between them;
4. Instructs the United Nations Representative to report to the Security Council his efforts, together with this views concerning the problems confided to him, not later than six weeks after this resolution comes into effect.
Adopted by 9 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (India and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
(Source Res. 96 (1951); UN Document No. 2/2393)

Resolution Adopted at the 611th Meeting of the Security Council on 23rd December, 1952

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Recalling its resolutions, 91(1951) of 30 March 1951, its decision of 30 April 1951 and its resolutions 96 (1951) of 10 November 1951.
Further Recalling the provisions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948, and 5 January 1949, which were accepted by the Governments of
India and Pakistan and which provided that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through the democratic method of a free and
impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
Having received the third report, dated 22 April 1952, and the fourth report, dated 16 September 1952, of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan;
1. Endorses the general principles on which the United Nations Representative has sought to bring about agreement between the Governments of India and Pakistan;
2. Notes with gratification that the United Nations Representative has reported that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted all but two of the paragraphs of his twelve-point proposals;
3. Notes that agreement on a plan of demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not been reached because the Governments of India and Pakistan have not agreed on the whole of
paragraph 7 of the twelve- point proposals;
4. Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on
the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarisation, this number to be between 3,000 and 6,000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan
side of the cease-fire line and between 12,000 and 18,000 armed forces remaining on the India side of the cease-line, as suggested by the United Nations Representative in his proposals of 16 July
1952, such specific numbers to be arrived at bearing in mind the principles or criteria contained in paragraph 7 of the United Nations Representative’s proposal of 4 September 1952;
5. Records its gratitude to the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan for the great efforts which he has made to achieve a settlement and requests him to continue to make his services available to the Governments of India and Pakistan to this end;
6. Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to report to the Security Council not later than thirty days from the date of the adoption of this resolution;
7. Requests the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to keep the Security Council informed of any progress.
Adopted by 9 votes to none, with 1 abstention (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(Source: Res. 98 (1957); UN Document no. S/2883)

Resolution Adopted at the 765th Meeting of the Security Council on 24th January, 1957

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Having Heard statements from representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47 (1948) of 21 April, 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948, 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and 91(1951)
of 30 March, 1951, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will
be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
1. Reaffirms the affirmation in its resolution 91 (1951) and declares that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the “All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference” and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the
parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle;
2. Decides to continue its consideration of the dispute.
Adopted by 10 votes to none, 1 abstention (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic)
(Source: Res. 122 (1957); UN Document no. S/3779)

Resolution Adopted at the 774th Meeting of the Security Council on 21st February, 1957

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Recalling its resolution 122 (1957) of 24 January 1957, its previous resolutions and the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on the India-Pakistan question,
1. Requests the President of the Security Council, the representative of Sweden, to examine with the Governments of India and Pakistan any proposals which, in his opinion, are likely to contribute towards the settlement of the dispute, having regard to the previous resolutions of the Security Council and of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan; to visit the sub-continent for this purpose; and to report to the Security Council not later than 15 April 1957;
2. Invites the Governments of India and Pakistan to co-operate with him in the performance of these functions;
3. Requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to render such assistance as he may request.

Adopted by 10 votes to none, 1 abstention (Union of India Soviet Socialist Republic)
(Source: Res. 123 (1957); UN Document no. S/3793)

Resolution Adopted at the 808th Meeting of the Security Council on 02nd December, 1957

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Having received and noted with appreciation the report of Mr. Gunner V. Jarring, the Representative of Sweden, on the mission undertaken by him pursuant to its resolution 123 (1957)
of 21 February, 1957.
Expressing its thanks to Mr. Jarring for the care and ability with which he has carried out his mission,
Observing with appreciation the expressions made by both parties of sincere willingness to co-operate with the United Nations in finding a peaceful solution,
Observing further that the governments of India and Pakistan recognise and accept the provisions of its resolution 38(1948) of 17 January, 1948 and of the resolutions of the United Nations
Commission for India and Pakistan dated 13 August, 1948 and 5 January, 1949, which envisage in accordance with their terms the determination of the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, and that Mr. Jarring felt it appropriate to explore what was impeding their full
implementation,
Concerned over the lack of progress towards a settlement of the dispute which his report manifests,
Considering the importance which it has attached to demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as one of the steps towards settlement,
Recalling its previous resolutions and the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on the India-Pakistan question,
1. Requests the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan to make any recommendations to the parties for further appropriate action, with a view to making progress towards the implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 13 August, 1948 and 5 January, 1949, and towards a peaceful settlement;
3. Authorises the United Nations Representative to visit the sub-continent for these purposes;
4. Instructs the United Nations Representative to report to the Security Council on his efforts as soon as possible.
Adopted by 10 votes to none, 1 abstention (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic)
(Source: Res. 126 (1957); UN Document no. S/3922)

Resolution Adopted at the 1237th Meeting of the Security Council on 04th September, 1965

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Noting the report of the Secretary-General of 3 September 1965,[1]
Having heard the statements of the representatives of India and Pakistan,
Concerned at the deteriorating situation along the cease-fire line in Kashmir,
1. Calls upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to take forthwith all steps for an immediate cease-fire;
2. Calls upon the Governments to respect the cease-fire line and have all armed personnel of each party withdrawn to its own side of the line;
3. Calls upon the two Governments to co-operate fully with the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) in its task of supervising the observance of the cease-fire;
4. Request the Secretary-General to report to the Council within three days on the implementation of the present resolution.

Adopted unanimously
(Source: Security Council Resolution no. 209 (1965)

Resolution Adopted at the 1238th Meeting of the Security Council on 06th September, 1965

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Noting the report of the Secretary-General on developments in the situation in Kashmir since the adoption of Security Council resolution 209 (1965) of 4 September 1965 calling for a cease-fire,
Noting with deep concern the extension of the fighting which adds immeasurably to the seriousness of the situation,
1. Calls upon the parties to cease hostilities in the entire area of conflict immediately, and promptly withdraw all armed personnel to the positions held by them before 5 August 1965;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to exert every possible effort to give effect to the present resolution and to resolution 209 (1965), to take all measures possible to strengthen the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, and to keep the Council promptly and currently informed on the implementation of the resolutions and on the situation in the area;
3. Decides to keep this issue under urgent and continuous review so that the Council may determine what further steps may be necessary to secure peace and security in the area.

Adopted unanimously
(Source: Security Council Resolution no. 210 (1965)

Resolution Adopted at the 1242th Meeting of the Security Council on 20th September, 1965

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Having considered the reports of the Secretary-General on his consultations with the Governments of India and Pakistan,
Commending the Secretary-General for his unrelenting efforts in furtherance of the objectives of Security Council resolutions 209 (1965) and 210 (1965) of 4 and 6 September 1965,
Having heard the statements of the representatives of India and Pakistan,
Noting the differing replies by the parties to an appeal for a cease-fire as set out in the report of the Secretary-General, but noting further with concern that no cease-fire has yet come into being,
Convinced that an early cessation of hostilities is essential as a first step towards a peaceful settlement of the outstanding differences between the two countries on Kashmir and other related matters,
1. Demands that a cease-fire should take effect on Wednesday, 22 September 1965, at 0700 hours GMT, and calls upon both Governments to issue orders for a cease-fire at that moment and a subsequent withdrawal of all armed personnel to the positions held by them before 5 August 1965;
2. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary assistance to ensure supervision of the cease-fire and the withdrawal of all armed personnel;
3. Calls on all States to refrain from any action which might aggravate the situation in the area;
4. Decides to consider, as soon as paragraph 1 of Council resolution 210 (1965) has been implemented, what steps could be taken to assist towards a settlement of the political problem underlying the present conflict, and in the meantime calls on the two Governments to utilize all peaceful means, including those listed in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, to this end;
5. Requests the Secretary-General to exert every possible effort to give effect to the present resolution, to seek a peaceful solution, and to report to the Security Council thereon.

Adopted by ten votes to none, abstention (Jordon)
(Source: Security Council Resolution no. 211 (1965)

Resolution Adopted at the 1245th Meeting of the Security Council on 27th September, 1965

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Noting the reports of the Secretary-General,
Reaffirming its resolutions 209 (1965) of 4 September, 210 (1965) of 6 September and 211 (1965) of 20 September 1965,
Expressing its grave concern that the cease-fire agreed to unconditionally by the Governments of India and Pakistan is not holding,
Recalling that the cease-fire demand in the Council’s resolutions was unanimously endorsed by the Council and agreed to by the Governments of both India and Pakistan,
Demands that the parties urgently honour their commitments to the Council to observe the cease-fire, and further calls upon the parties promptly to withdraw all armed personnel as necessary steps in the full implementation of resolution 211 (1965).

(Source: Security Council Resolution no. 214 (1965)

Resolution Adopted at the 1251st Meeting of the Security Council on 5th November, 1965

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Regretting the delay in full achievement of a complete and effective cease-fire and a prompt withdrawal of armed personnel to the positions held by them before 5 August 1965, as called for in its resolution 209 (1965) of 4 September, 210 (1965) of 6 September, 211 (1965) of 20 September and 214 (1965) of 27 September 1965,
1. Reaffirms its resolution 211 (1965) in all its parts;
2. Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to co-operate towards a full implementation of paragraph 1 of resolution 211 (1965); calls upon them to instruct their armed personnel to co-operate with the United Nations and cease all military activity; and insists that there be an end to violations of the cease-fire;
3. Demands the prompt and unconditional execution of the proposal already agreed to in principle by the Governments of India and Pakistan that their representatives meet with a suitable representative of the Secretary-General, to be appointed without delay after consultation with both parties, for the purpose of formulating an agreed plan and schedule for the withdrawals by both parties; urges that such a meeting take place as soon as possible and that such plan contain a time-limit on its implementation; and requests the Secretary-General to report on the progress achieved in this respect within three weeks of the adoption of the present resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to submit for its consideration as soon as possible a report on compliance with the present resolution.

Adopted by 9 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (Jordon, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
(Source: Security Council Resolution no. 215 (1965)

Resolution Adopted at the 1621st Meeting of the Security Council on 21st December, 1971

THE SECURITY COUNCIL

Having discussed the grave situation in the subcontinent, which remains a threat to international peace and security,
Noting General Assembly resolution 2793 (XXVI) of 7 December 1971,
Noting the reply of the Government of Pakistan on 9 December 1971,
Noting the reply of the Government of India on 12 December 1971,
Having heard the statements of the Deputy Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Foreign Minister of India,
Noting further the statement made at the 1616th meeting of the Security Council by the Foreign Minister of India containing a unilateral declaration of a cease-fire in the western theatre,
Noting Pakistan’s agreement to the cease-fire in the western theatre with effect from 17 December 1971,
Noting that consequently a cease-fire and a cessation of hostilities prevail,
1. Demands that a durable cease-fire and cessation of all hostilities in all areas of conflict be strictly observed and remain in effect until withdrawals take place, as soon as practicable, of all armed forces to their respective territories and to positions which fully respect the cease-fire line in Jammu and Kashmir supervised by the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan;
2. Calls upon all Member States to refrain from any action which may aggravate the situation in the subcontinent or endanger international peace;
3. Calls upon all those concerned to take all measures necessary to preserve human life and for the observance of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and to apply in full their provisions as regards the protection of the wounded and sick, prisoners of war and civilian population;
4. Calls for international assistance in the relief of suffering and the rehabilitation of refugees and their return in safety and dignity to their homes, and for full co-operation with the Secretary-General to that effect;
5. Authorizes the Secretary-General to appoint if necessary a special representative to lend his good offices for the solution of humanitarian problems;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Council informed without delay on developments relating to the implementation of the present resolution;
7. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to keep it under active consideration.

Adopted by 13 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (Poland and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
(Source: Security Council Resolution no. 307 (1971)

TASHKENT DECLARATION
January 10, 1966

Lal Bahadur Shastri

The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan having met at Tashkent and having discussed the existing relations between India and Pakistan, hereby declare their firm resolve to restore normal and peaceful relations between their countries and to promote understanding and friendly relations between their peoples. They consider the attainment of these objectives of vital importance for the welfare of the 600 million people of India and Pakistan.
(i) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan agree that both sides will exert all efforts to create good neighbourly relations between India and Pakistan in accordance with the United Nations Charter. They reaffirm their obligation under the Charter not to have recourse to force and to settle their disputes through peaceful means. They considered that the interests of peace in their region and particularly in the Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent and, indeed, the interests of the peoples of India and Pakistan were not served by the continuance of tension between the two countries. It was against this background that Jammu and Kashmir was discussed, and each of the sides set forth its respective position.

Troops Withdrawal
(ii) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that all armed personnel of the two countries shall be withdrawn not later than 25 February, 1966 to the positions they held prior to 5 August, 1965, and both sides shall observe the cease-fire terms on the cease-fire line.
(iii) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that relations between India and Pakistan shall be based on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each other.
(iv) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that both sides will discourage any propaganda directed against the other country, and will encourage propaganda which promotes the development of friendly relations between the two countries.
(v) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that the High Commissioner of India to Pakistan and the High Commissioner of Pakistan to India will return to their posts and that the normal functioning of diplomatic missions of both countries will be restored. Both Governments shall observe the Vienna Convention of 1961 on Diplomatic Intercourse.
Trade Relations
(vi) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed to consider measures towards the restoration of economic and trade relations, communications, as well as cultural exchanges between India and Pakistan, and to take measures to implement the existing agreements between India and Pakistan.
(vii) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that they give instructions to their respective authorities to carry out the repatriation of the prisoners of war.
(viii) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that the sides will continue the discussion of questions relating to the problems of refugees and evictions/illegal immigrations. They also agreed that both sides will create conditions which will prevent the exodus of people. They further agreed to discuss the return of the property and assets taken over by either side in connection with the conflict.

Soviet Leaders Thanked
(ix) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that the sides will continue meetings both at the highest and at other levels on matters of direct concern to both countries. Both sides have recognized the need to set up joint Indian-Pakistani bodies which will report to their Governments in order to decide what further steps should be taken.
(x) The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan record their feelings of deep appreciation and gratitude to the leaders of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Government and personally to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. for their constructive, friendly and noble part in bringing about the present meeting which has resulted in mutually satisfactory results. They also express to the Government and friendly people of Uzbekistan their sincere thankfulness for their overwhelming reception and generous hospitality.

They invite the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. to witness this Declaration.

Sd /- Sd /-
LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI MOHAMMAD AYOUB KHAN
Prime Minister of India President of Pakistan

Tashkent, 10 January 1966.

Text of Agreement on Bilateral Relations between India and Pakistan Signed at Shimla on 2 July, 1972

“(1) The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the sub-continent, so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing talk of advancing the welfare of their peoples.
“In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:-
(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries;
(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations;
(iii) That the pre-requisite for reconciliation, good neighbourliness and durable peace between them is a commitment by both the countries to peaceful co-existence, respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit;
(iv) That the basic issues and causes of conflict which have bedevilled the relations between the two countries for the last 25 years shall be resolved by peaceful means;
(v) That they shall always respect each other’s national unity, territorial integrity, political independence and sovereign equality;
(vi) That in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations they will refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of each other.
(2) Both Governments will take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other.
Both countries will encourage the dissemination of such information as would promote the development of friendly relations between them.
(3) In order progressively to restore and normalize relations between the two countries step by step, it was agreed that;
(i) Steps shall be taken to resume communications, postal, telegraphic, sea, land including border posts, and air links including overflights.
(ii) Appropriate steps shall be taken to promote travel facilities for the nationals of the other country.
(iii) Trade and co-operation in economic and other agreed fields will be resumed as far as possible.
(iv) Exchange in the fields of science and culture will be promoted.
In this connection delegations from the two countries will meet from time to time to work out the necessary details.
(4) In order to initiate the process of the establishment of durable peace, both the Governments agree that:
(i) Indian and Pakistani forces shall be withdrawn to their side of the international border.
(ii) In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line;
(iii) The withdrawals shall commence upon entry into force of this Agreement and shall be completed within a period of 30 days thereof.
(5) This Agreement will be subject to ratification by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, and will come into force with effect from the date on which the Instruments of Ratification are exchanged.
Both Governments agree that their respective Heads will meet again at a mutually convenient time in the future and that, in the meanwhile, the representatives of the two sides will meet to discuss further the modalities and arrangements for the establishment of durable peace and normalization of relations, including the questions of repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees, a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir and the resumption of diplomatic relations.

Sd/- Sd/-
(Indira Gandhi) (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto)
Prime Minister President
Republic of India Islamic Republic of Pakistan

The Lahore Declaration

The Prime Ministers of the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan:
Sharing a vision of peace and stability between their countries, and of progress and prosperity for their peoples;
Convinced that durable peace and development of harmonious relations and friendly cooperation will serve the vital interests of the peoples of the two countries, enabling them to devote their energies for a better future;
Recognising that the nuclear dimension of the security environment of the two countries adds to their responsibility for avoidance of conflict between the two countries;
Committed to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, and the universally accepted principles of peaceful co- existence;
Reiterating the determination of both countries to implementing the Simla Agreement in letter and spirit;
Committed to the objective of universal nuclear disarmament and non-proliferartion;
Convinced of the importance of mutually agreed confidence building measures for improving the security environment;
Recalling their agreement of 23rd September, 1998, that an environment of peace and security is in the supreme national interest of both sides and that the resolution of all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, is essential for this purpose;

Have agreed that their respective Governments:
• shall intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.
• shall refrain from intervention and interference in each other’s internal affairs.
• shall intensify their composite and integrated dialogue process for an early and positive outcome of the agreed bilateral agenda.
• shall take immediate steps for reducing the risk of accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons and discuss concepts and doctrines with a view to elaborating measures for confidence building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at prevention of conflict.
• reaffirm their commitment to the goals and objectives of SAARC and to concert their efforts towards the realisation of the SAARC vision for the year 2000 and beyond with a view to promoting the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve their quality of life through accelerated economic growth, social progress and cultural development.
• reaffirm their condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and their determination to combat this menace.
• shall promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Signed at Lahore on the 21st day of February 1999.

Atal Behari Vajpayee
Prime Minister of the Republic of India

Muhammad Nawaz Sharif
Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

NEW YORK DECLARATION, 2004

Text of joint statement on India-Pakistan summit
Saturday September 24, 2004

NEW YORK: President Musharraf and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh had one hour meeting on Friday morning. Their discussions were held in a constructive and frank spirit. They welcomed the opportunity of making each other’s acquaintance during the first meeting.
Both leaders reiterated their commitment to continue the bilateral dialogue to restore normalcy and cooperation between India and Pakistan.
They agreed that confidence-building measures (CBMs) of all categories under discussion between the two governments should be implemented keeping in mind practical possibilities. They also addressed the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and agreed that possible options for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the issue should be explored in a sincere spirit and purposeful manner. In the spirit of the Islamabad joint press statement of January 6, 2004, they agreed that CBMs will contribute to generating an atmosphere of trust and mutual understanding so necessary for the well being of the peoples of both countries.
The possibility of a gas pipeline via Pakistan to India was also discussed. It was felt that such a project could contribute to the welfare and prosperity of the people of both countries and should be considered in the larger context of expanding trade and economic relations between India and Pakistan.

NEW YORK DECLARATION, 2005

Text of joint statement on India-Pakistan summit
September 14, 2005

“Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and Pakistan President Musharraf met in New York on September 14 and reviewed progress in their relations since they last met in Ney Delhi on April 18, 2005.
The two leaders referred to their earlier statements of January 6, 2004 and April 18, 2005 and reiterated their pledge not to allow terrorism to impede the peace process. They reaffirmed their commitment to the decision taken at their meeting in New Delhi and agreed to expedite their implementation.
They also welcomed the progress made within the framework of the composite dialogue, including promotion of trade and economic relations, people to people contacts and confidence building measures. They also welcomed the recent release of prisoners on both sides and agreed to continue this process on a humanitarian basis.
They expressed their commitment to ensure a peaceful settlement of all pending issued including Jammu and Kashmir to the satisfaction of both sides. They agreed that possible options for a peacefully negotiated settlement should continue to be pursued in a sincere spirit and a peaceful manner.

HAVANA DECLARATION, 2006

Havana, September 16 (IANS)
Havana, September 16, 2006

President General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had a cordial, frank and detailed exchange of views on all aspects of India-Pakistan relations. Desirous of carrying forward the dialogue process, the leaders reiterated their commitments and determination to implement the Joint Statements of January 6, 2004, September 24, 2004, April 18, 2005 and September 14, 2005.
2. The leaders agreed that the peace process must be maintained and its success was important for both countries and the future of the entire region. In this context, they directed their Foreign Secretaries to resume the composite dialogue at the earliest possible.
3. The two leaders met in the aftermath of the Mumbai blasts. They strongly condemned all acts of terrorism and agreed that terrorism is a scourge that needs to be effectively dealt with. They decided to put in place an India-Pakistan anti-terrorism institutional mechanism to identify and implement counter-terrorism initiatives and investigations.
4. The leaders decided to continue the joint search for mutually acceptable options for a peaceful negotiated settlement of all issues between India and Pakistan, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, in a sincere and purposeful manner. On the Jammu and Kashmir issue, there have been useful discussions. There is a need to build on convergences and narrow down divergences.
5. The two leaders also directed the Foreign Secretaries on the following:
– The Foreign Secretaries should meet shortly in New Delhi to continue the composite dialogue.

– To arrange consultations for early solution of the Siachen issue.
– Experts should meet immediately to agree on coordinates for joint survey of Sir Creek and adjoining area, without prejudice to each other’s position on the issue. The Survey should commence in November 2006. The experts should start discussions on the maritime boundary.
– The two sides will facilitate implementation of agreements and understandings already reached on LoC-related CBMs, including bus services, crossing points and truck service.
6. The President of Pakistan renewed his invitation to the Prime Minister of India to visit Pakistan. Thanking the President, the Prime Minister indicated that he looked forward to a purposeful visit at a time to be determined through diplomatic channels.

SHARM-EL-SHEIKH

The following is the joint statement issued after talks between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan here on Thursday:

The Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, met in Sharm-el-Sheikh on July 16, 2009.
The two Prime Ministers had a cordial and constructive meeting. They considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India- Pakistan relations. Both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries. Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and to cooperate with each other to this end.
Prime Minister Singh reiterated the need to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice. Prime Minister Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything in its power in this regard. He said that Pakistan had provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence. Prime Minister Singh said that the dossier is being reviewed.
Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats.
Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and other areas.
Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including ail outstanding issues.
Prime Minister Singh reiterated India’s interest in a stable, democratic, Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Both leaders agreed that the real challenge is development and the elimination of poverty.
Both leaders are resolved to eliminate those factors which prevent our countries from realizing their full potential. Both agreed to work to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence.
Both leaders reaffirmed their intention to promote regional cooperation.
Both foreign secretaries should meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers who will be meeting on the sidelines of the forthcoming UN General Assembly.

End

Comments are closed.