somnath wrote:
Are you saying all Instruments of Acession had the same schedule? any references?
Yes.
http://www.oocities.com/capitolhill/con ... 9-211.html
This is the standard template for ALL Instruments of Accession that princely states had to sign when acceding to India, per the Indian Independence Act of the UK Parliament, 1947.
FORM OF INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION
OF SEMI-JURISDICTIONAL AND JURISDICTIONAL STATES.
Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion know as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act, 1935, shall, with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modification as the Governor-General may by order specify be applicable to the Dominion of India
Note the schedule. It is the same as the one for J&K.
In fact, you will see the provisions:
7. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements 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.
are also part of the Standard Form of every Instrument of Accession. Presumably signed by ALL princely states, including Babariawad or Bhopal or Travancore. Possession, as they realized, is 9/10ths of the Law... all this "nothing in this instrument binds me" was preliminary H&D-soothing nonsense for the Nizam-ul-mulks and Maharajadhirajas, nothing more.
Sorry to say so... but invoking these clauses to pretend as if there was something half-baked or
"conditional" about J&K's accession to India is a very, very Paki argument to make!
Not that many states didn't attempt to bargain their way out of it... Hyderabad, for instance, wanted to give over control of foreign affairs only to the extent that the Nizam could remain neutral in the event of an Indo-Pak war. We all know what came of that. It is patently ridiculous to pretend that, once the IoA was signed by Hari Singh, J&K was entitled to a single iota of special treatment over and above the accession clauses agreed to by all monarchs.
Which, again, is a far cry from your assertion:
The one signed by Hari Singh "agreed to accede to the Dominion of India on condition that the state retain its own constitution and autonomy in all matters except defense, currency and foreign affairs"
Which, apart from being completely factually inaccurate, gives the impression that there were very many different "ones."