In `Sub-plots in Kashmir drama - the Instrument of Accession was not linked to Plebiscite' (Write Back, July 28), Arvind Lavakare has cited the opinion of two legal personalities, including the present Chief Justice, both of whom appeared to have considered the accession from a purely legal angle. They have ignored the fact that all princely states became independent after the lapse of British paramountcy and that every ruler could decide to which country his state should accede or whether it should remain independent. The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh and accepted by Lord Mountbatten was an agreement between two sovereign states. How it can be examined under the Indian Contract Act is beyond the comprehension of anyone who knows the history of the dispute. It was the Congress party's policy that the views of the peoples of the princely states must count in deciding their future. It was also Mahatma Gandhi's view, who said in the òf40óHarijan of August 24, 1947:- ``Common sense dictated that the will of the Kashmiris should decide the future of Kashmir and Jammu. How the will of the people would be decided was a fair question. He hoped it would be decided between the two Dominions (India and Pakistan), the Maharaja Sahib and the Kashmiris.'' About the same time, the Muslim ruler of a small, vastly Hindu-majority state, acceded to Pakistan. The people rose against his decision. India proposed a referendum. Nehru said on October 6, 1947, ``Any decision involving the fate of large numbers of people must necessarily depend on the wishes of the people. a dispute involving the fate of any territory should be decided by a referendum or plebiscite of the people concerned.'' There was no response from Pakistan. On October 9, Indian troops entered Junagadh and met with no resistance. Pakistan protested but was ignored. A referendum was held on February 20, 1948. H.V. Hodson, Constitutional Advisor to previous Viceroy Linlithgow wrote: ``If the Indian Government acquiesced, admitting the undoubted legal right of the ruler to decide which way to go, the precedent of a Muslim Prince taking a Hindu-majority state into Pakistan.could be applied to the far greater prize of Hyderabad. If the Indian Government intervened with force. it would set up a contrary precedent, to be applied by Pakistan to Kashmir, were the Maharaja to accede to India. If India demanded, as alternative to force, a plebiscite in Junagadh, this could be adopted as a general principle which, when applied to Kashmir and Jammu would, in Karachi's estimate, take the state to Pakistan.'' Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, after Pakistani invaders had reached the outskirts of Srinagar. Under the circumstances, the accession document was accepted subject to a plebiscite after normalcy returned. Whether the conditional acceptance was recorded on the same document or in a separate letter is immaterial. India could not adopt double standards, one for Muslim-ruled but Hindu-majority Junagadh and Hyderabad and another for Hindu-ruled but Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir. There was no blunder or monumental mess as contended by Lavakare. Whatever was said, written or done by Nehru about holding a plebiscite, before the UN or any other forum, was a reiteration of the earlier commitment to the Kashmiri people. Mountbatten and Nehru were not dealing with a piece of real estate ``gifted'' to India by Hari Singh but with the accession of a then sovereign state. The will of its people had to be ascertained at some stage. It is preposterous to argue our case on the legal niceties of the Indian Contract Act. The problem in Kashmir is political and what is needed is a political initiative involving India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri people.
