The instrument of accession signed by the Maharaja, with its own unique clauses, was considered an almost temporary agreement between J&K and India, but, like other princely states, namely Hyderabad and Travancore, their own clauses, which were incorporated into their instruments of accession, watered down in due course, and these princely states fully respected the constitution of India, as well as the J&K membership clauses. In this sense, the current repeal of Article 370 is exactly under the Indian constitution and it is high time that Kashmiri accept the fact that they are legitimate citizens of India and deny the external influences they indoctrinate and aspire to lead a peaceful and prosperous life. The entire Indian nation will support them in this regard. The Kalat Khanate, on the western outskirts of Pakistan, has also decided to remain independent. It has signed a status quo agreement with Pakistan. A status quo agreement can be reached between governments for better governance. The Governor-General of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, sent his Private Secretary Khurshid Hasan Khurshid to Srinagar to assure the Maharaja of signing an instrument of accession with Pakistan. “His Majesty has been told that he is a sovereign who alone has the power to grant membership; that he does not need to consult anyone; that he should not deal with Sheikh Abdullah or the National Conference…┬áJinnah`s letter, delivered by Khurshid to the Maharaja. It is significant that the agreement did not provide for the Dominion of India to deploy Indian forces in the state, while British India had maintained various townships, notably in Secunderabad, as part of its “subsidiary alliance” with the state. Over the next six months, Indian troops were withdrawn from the state. [15] The state of Jammu and Kashmir, which joined both India and Pakistan, decided to remain independent.

She proposed to sign status quo agreements with the two gentlemen. Pakistan immediately agreed, but India requested further discussions. According to K.M. Munshi, appointed Indian agent general in Hyderabad, the Indians felt that the conclusion of a status quo agreement with Hyderabad meant that India had lost control of Hyderabad`s affairs. The Hyderabad State Congress opposed it because it was seen by the Indian government as a sign of weakness. [16] V. P. Menon said Nizam and his advisers saw the deal as a respite in which Indian troops would be withdrawn and the state could build its position to maintain independence.

[17] The agreement is particularly important to the extent that the bidder had access to the subject entity`s confidential financial information. . . .