🇧🇩 Forceful Integration of Various Independent States in India

Site is back up.

Be apart of something great, join today! We are still updating some fixes.

G Bangladesh Defense Forum

Saif

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2024
Messages
4,385
Reaction score
1,651
Points
1,000
Origin

Residence

Axis Group

Forceful integration of Hyderabad in India
Humayun Kabir 12 July, 2024, 00:00

1720748306445.png
The Nizam's forces in Hyderabad. | The Hindu


THIS write-up is intended to inform the readers of the glorious history of Hyderabad and its forcible annexation by India to be its part, despite Hyderabad opting not to join India after 200 years of British rule. It is also a reminder to us, the Bangladeshi people, to reflect upon and take lessons from this history that may enlighten us about the stakes of our future status as a nation.

Briefly, let us familiarise ourselves with the history of Hyderabad. In 1724, Nizam-ul-Mulk Asaf Jah established Hyderabad, a state that spread over most of the Deccan plateau. At the time, Hyderabad used to have its own army, airline, rail services, radio, banking and postal department networks. In terms of population and GDP size, Hyderabad was the largest monarchy in India at that time. The state covered 82,698 square miles. That was more than the total area of England and Scotland combined. Interestingly, more than 80 per cent of Hyderabad's population was Hindu, and despite being a minority, Muslims occupied important positions both in civil administration and the army. The Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali Shah, had the intention of keeping his state as an independent entity and did not join India or Pakistan after 1947. The Nizam took advantage of the fact that the Indian government got preoccupied with the Kashmir war soon after independence, and all focus and resources were fully diverted towards tackling the Pakistani threat over Jammu and Kashmir.

Briefly, Hyderabad, in pre-British times, was composed of three regions: Telangana, Marathwada and Karnataka. Three languages, Telegu, Marathi and Kannada, were spoken in the erstwhile state of Hyderabad. There are no natural lakes in the region, but the dams built across hills and low ground over the centuries have resulted in a myriad of reservoirs, some of which were of impressive dimensions. The state is rich in minerals. There was coal, gold, marble, mica, garnet and limestone, but coal was worked on a reasonably large scale. There were six textile' mills producing cotton yarn and machine-woven goods; a government-sponsored handloom and dying industry providing clothes for half the population of the state; and there were cottage and handicraft industries like carpets, blankets, silk goods and metal in-lay articles. The state also produced edible oil from groundnut, castor and other oilseeds, leather for the local markets and for export using 84 tanneries, soap, alcohol, cement, cigarettes, glass, stoneware pipes and other sundry products. Moreover, the railways, electric, telegraph and postal systems were all introduced in the state in the 19th century. Twentieth century Hyderabad was very much a princely state, with its self-sufficient economy. It was, like other princely states, a place where being of the same religion as the ruler did not automatically warrant elevated employment, nor was the converse true, for high officials and even prime ministers in Hyderabad had sometimes been Hindus.

From the late 16th century on, the Nizam-ul-Milk authority was under British tutelage, but as this control was mainly confined to the political field, it was not followed by major social changes. It could be said that the socio-economic structure that emerged in the days of Nizam Asaf Jah I survived in its outlines until the end of the princely era in 1948.

Historically, since its independence from the British Raj in 1947, India has prided itself on its secularism, although it is an open secret that this secularism is a mere cosmetic cover for soft Hindu nationalism. The first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was not ignorant of the fact that a more open form of Hindu nationalism would have alienated the world's major geopolitical powers at a time when decolonised India sought the leadership of the upcoming Third World. So, the Congress adopted a carefully crafted policy towards integrating the princely states by adopting a soft negotiation policy. When the British were leaving India, all but three of the 562 princely states were uncertain about merging with India. These were Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad. In 1947, when the British left India, they gave the princely states the choice to either join India or Pakistan or remain independent.

The Nizam of Hyderabad initially approached the British government with the proposal to designate Hyderabad as a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth of Nations. The proposal was rejected by Lord Mountbatten, then Viceroy of India. Despite the rejection, the Nizam began negotiations with representatives from European nations and sought to buy Goa from the Portuguese so that Hyderabad would have access to the sea. Overruling Nehru's efforts to address the issue diplomatically, Sarder Patel sought military means. The Muslims, becoming desperate, resorted to violence.

The 1947–48 period was tense in the Hyderabad state, as Mir Osman Ali Khan, the seventh and last monarch, was deliberating between joining India or running an independent state. Meanwhile, a journalist, Shoaib Ullah Khan, who used to run Imroz, an Urdu daily, and supported the idea of Hyderabad joining India, was murdered by Razaakars (a Muslim militia) for it. The newly independent State of India found that the richest and largest princely state that was ruled by a Muslim simply could not be easily integrated into the new nation. It was far too triggering for the soft Hindu India. Upon witnessing the refusal of the ruling Nizam, the new India then opted for force. New Delhi unleashed a so-called 'police action' that would last for too long and see far too many Muslim victims, who were subjected to the revenge of their Hindu 'friends' and neighbours who always felt that the Hyderabad State was illegitimate.

Based on a committee report that had been suppressed by succeeding governments until 2013, the victims were in the tens of thousands. The numbers lie anywhere between 27,000 and 40,000 individuals, either put to death immediately or killed after first being inhumanly subjected to extreme forms of torture and sexual violence. The Muslims tried to respond to this force by the Delhi authorities with a force of their own. However, they were eventually crushed due to the sheer numbers and superior military power of their opponents.

The brain behind Operation Polo, as it was called, was someone named Sardar Ballav bhai Patel, who was also a soft Hindu nationalist, probably the reason why the ruling BJP party inaugurated the 'Statue of Unity' in 2018, with Sarder Patel having been transformed into the world's largest statue (182 metres) due to supposedly 'unified' India. This unification of India includes forcefully annexing Kashmir and Hyderabad. In fact, the BJP has been pushing to make the 17th of September 'Hyderabad's Liberation Day.' As for the Hyderabad Muslims, many of them have migrated to different countries, mainly Pakistan. Those who remain are caught in a constant siege of cultural welfare, being viewed as foreign by the surrounding groups, if not for their race.

The violent means of annexing Hyderabad is a stark reminder that it need not be the last one of annexation by force by India. Our people must realise that our existence in South Asia, surrounded by India and Myanmar, must be carefully managed if we are to remain a peaceful neighbour in the region.

Humayun Kabir (kabirruhi@gmail.com) is a former United Nations Official in New York.​
 

Looking back at India's illegal annexation of Junagadh

Mr. Amjed Jaaved sheds light on India's illegal occupation of Junagadh. Apart from occupying Jammu and Kashmir in 1947, India went through an act of aggression transgressed upon the Muslim-ruled princely state of Junagadh and occupied it by force soon after the partition of the Indo-Pak sub-continent.
By Amjed Jaaved
14 September 2021

1722732197400.png
Kashmir, Sir Creek, and Junagadh are unresolved disputes on the United States agenda. Sir Creek separates the Indian state of Gujarat from the Pakistani province of Sindh. India and Pakistan went to fisticuffs many a time in this region. Once a skirmish threatened to flare up into a full-fledged Indo-Pak war, then Pakistan's army chief General Musa asked the Pakistan Air force chief to strafe marching columns of the Indian army. Asghar Khan phoned the Indian air-force chief. They both agreed not to intervene.

Pakistan did not forcefully agitate the Junagadh issue at the UN. The underlying reason was that India then could have pleaded that Pakistan's stand on Kashmir was contradictory. It owned the Junagadh accession but disowned the Kashmir accession to India.

Sir Creek forms the boundary between the Indian state of Gujarat and the Pakistani province of Sindh. It has been a subject of dispute between the two countries, often leading to clashes between security forces.

When the British were leaving India, there were 565 princely states under the overall suzerainty of the British crown. They were independent but were given the choice of joining India or Pakistan or remaining independent.

The genesis of the Junagadh dispute

The ruler of Junagadh, a princely state at the time of partition, was Muhammad Mahabat Khan Babi III.

Besides Babi, the other influential individual was the dewan, or prime minister, of Junagadh state, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, father of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

By August 14 and 15, nearly all of the princely state monarchs had signed their documents. Those who did not include the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir (Ramachandra Guha. The History of the World's Largest Democracy: India after Gandhi). Hence the subsequent disputes.

Junagadh had three vassal states. The ruler of Bantva-Manavadar (Manavadar, for short) acceded to Pakistan. But, the rulers of the two other principalities (Mangrol and Babariawad), declared that they would become part of India. They thus unsuccessfully challenged their sovereign's choice.

India's lame excuse for Junagadh invasion

The Indian soldiers who had earlier invaded Kashmir ostensibly to repulse raiders invaded Junagadh & Manavadar to annex them. Pakistan could not send its forces to Junagadh because of logistic problems. Pakistan has recently unveiled a political map including the additional territory as "Junagadh and Manavadar."

Thus ended the short-lived period of Junagadh belonging to Pakistan. The Nawab and the Dewan fled to Pakistan. On February 20, 1948, a referendum was held in Junagadh (including all of its vassal states) as a ruse to justify the invasion. India trumpeted results as it showed that out of 2,01,457 registered voters, 1,90,870 cast their votes and Pakistan got only 91 votes in favor of accession to Pakistan. A referendum was also held in five neighboring territories. Out of 31,434 votes cast in these areas, only 39 were for accession to Pakistan. Pakistan termed it a "farce". Pakistan never accepted the results of the Junagadh referendum. Nehru promised to hold a similar referendum in Jammu and Kashmir but never did.

But as the following excerpt from historian Rajmohan Gandhi's 1991 book shows, Patel's views on Kashmir changed from the time that he went about integrating princely states into what would go on to become the Union of India. Much before Independence, when Patel had first discussed the problem of princely states with Louis Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy, later to be the first Governor-General of independent India, he had asked him to bring in "a full basket of apples" by the date of Independence. Would he be satisfied with a bag of 560 instead of the full 565, the viceroy had wondered.

A historical lie

India gives the impression that Patel was a very reasonable and flexible person. He wanted to barter away the disputed Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Junagadh and Hyderabad. But when Pakistan insisted that Junagadh has already acceded to Pakistan, Patel changed his mind. He then decided to annex Junagadh and Hyderabad too.

India says Junagadh was mentioned by Pakistan when the Security Council took up the issue of the hostilities in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir in January 1948. Under the UN Security Council resolution 39, a commission was set up for the "peaceful resolution of the Kashmir conflict", and the mandate of this commission was to investigate allegations by India of the situation in J&K, as well as "other issues" raised by Pakistan, which included Junagadh that Pakistan accused India of "annexing and occupying by force".

India's perfidious leaders

At the time of the British withdrawal, there were 565 princely states apart from thousands of zamindari estates and jagirs. In 1947, princely states covered 40 percent of the area of pre-independence India and constituted 23 percent of its population. The most important states had their own British Political Residencies: Hyderabad of the Nizams, Mysore, and Travancore in the South followed by Jammu and Kashmir, and Sikkim in the Himalayas, and Indore in Central India.

India annexed all the princely states by hook or by crook, barring the disputed states.

Indian leaders harbored a perfidious wish to annex all the princely states. Take the disputed Kashmir. The puppet Kashmir governor had to publicly announce that "there were no plans to abrogate Article 35A [and Article 370 about special status]." But then they repealed not only article 370 but also article 35-A.

Nehru's documented perfidy

Because of Nehru's failure to keep promises, Sheikh Abdullah had begun to talk of independence. Nehru wanted to keep the bull at bay while concealing his desire to annex the disputed state. He made many assurances to tab Sheikh Abdullah's over ebullience.

Avtar Singh Bhasin (India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odd) tells on page 63 on the basis of Nehruvian diaries. Nehru addressed a lengthy letter to him [Sheikh Abdullah] on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg, where he was then camping. After narrating the events since the accession of the State in October 1947, he went on to assure him of his commitment to the people of the State that the future would be decided by them alone, and if they wanted India to be put out of Kashmir, there would be no hesitation.

He wrote, if the people of Kashmir clearly and definitely wish to part company from India, there the matter ends, however, we may dislike it or however disadvantageous it may be to India. If the Constituent Assembly told India to get out of Kashmir, we would get out, because under no circumstances can we remain here against the expressed will of the people.

Kashmir assembly's `accession' disowned, Security Council owned: Nehru banked on so-called Instrument of Accession and its authentication by 'Constituent Assembly'. But in a strange quirk of a volte-face, Nehru declared, "After consideration of the problem, we are inclined to think that it [plebiscite] should be held under United Nations auspices" (p. 28 ibid.). He reiterated in New Delhi on November 3, 1951, that "We have made it perfectly clear before the Security Council that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly does not [insofar] as we are concerned come in the way of a decision by the Security Council, or the United Nations"(SJW: Volume 4: page 292, Bhasin p.228).

Again, at a press conference on June 11, 1951, he was asked, "If the proposed constituent assembly of Kashmir decides in favor of acceding to Pakistan, what will be the position?" he reiterated, "We have made it perfectly clear that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was not meant to decide finally any such question, and it is not in the way of any decision which may ultimately flow from the Security Council proceedings" (SJW: Volume 15, Part II, page 394. Bhasin page 56). He re-emphasized his view once again at a press conference in New Delhi On November 3, 1951. He said, "We have made it perfectly clear before the Security Council that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly does not [insofar as] we are concerned come in the way of a decision by the Security Council of the United Nations."

Security Council disowned as just a non-binding mediator

It is flabbergasting that during the period 1947 to 1952, Nehru kept harping commitment to a plebiscite. Then there was a sudden metamorphosis in his compliant attitude.

Bhasin points out that there was a perceptible shift in his [Nehru's] stand on July 24, 1952, about the future of the State _ if the decision of the Security Council was at variance with that of the Constituent Assembly. Nehru said that unless the Security Council functioned under some other Sections of the Charter, it cannot make a decision which is binding upon us unless we agree to it. They are functioning as mediators and a mediator means getting people to agree (SJW, Volume 19, page 241. Bhasin page 56).

Indian leaders accepted the UN resolutions willy nilly. At heart, they wanted to annex all the princely states as is obvious for instance from Nehru's somersaults. Like Nehru, Vallabhai Patel also was no man of word. India has lame excuses to invade Kashmir, Junagadh, or for that matter any princely state.

Mr. Amjed Jaaved has been contributing freelance for over fifty years. His articles are published in dailies at home (The News, Nation, etc) and abroad (Nepal. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, et. al.). He is the author of eight books including Kashmir: The Myth of Accession. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.​
 

Kashmir annexation
From the Newspaper Published October 26, 2021

IT was on Oct 26, 1947, that India signed the illegal Instrument of Accession with Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh against the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, which has been the bone of contention between Pakistan and India ever since. The revocation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on Aug 5, 2019, was a consequence of that illegality in 1947.

There are many aspects that strengthen the stance of Pakistan on occupied Kashmir.

According to the June 3 Plan, it was decided that 564 princely states could either go to Pakistan or accede to India. But India annexed Junagadh and Hyderabad by violating the basic principles of the plan. The Instrument of Accession was given provisional acceptance.

Jawaharlal Nehru made many speeches wherein he stated that the Kashmir dispute would be resolved according to the will of people. These speeches on different occasions proved that Kashmir had been annexed against the wishes of the people.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has passed a litany of resolutions on the status of Jammu and Kashmir, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) has passed its own resolutions on the basis of which Pakistan rightly rejects India's claim about Kashmir being its internal matter.

The action of Aug 5, 2019, was also in utter violation of the original Instrument of Accession that had declared that the state could not be compelled to accept any future constitution enacted by India.

But India has deprived the Kashmiris of their right to self-determination, which is also mentioned in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR).

All this reinforces the justified stance of Pakistan on the disputed status of occupied Kashmir issue.

Anwar Uddin
Ranipur

Published in Dawn, October 26th, 2021​
 

Occupied Jammu and Kashmir: A human rights black hole
by Yousaf Junaid
Aug 05, 2023 - 12:05 am GMT+3

1722733237261.png
An elderly Kashmiri man is stopped before being allowed to pass near a temporary checkpoint set up by Indian paramilitary soldiers during lockdown in Srinagar, Indian controlled Kashmir, Friday, Aug. 23, 2019. (AP Photo)

No pain and suffering could ever match the misery of living under a foreign occupation. It is inhuman, savage, indefensible and illegal by all standards of international law and morality. A wide body of laws prohibit illegal occupation of a territory. However, "Jammu and Kashmir," a region with a population of over 10 million, has been under brutal occupation of India for the last 75 years.

It is the region where generations after generations of Kashmiris have only seen darkness of tyranny, oppression and state terrorism. During this inhuman occupation, over 100,000 Kashmiris have been martyred, thousands of youth abducted and maimed, and women raped by Indian occupation forces. Demolishing properties of Kashmiris, arbitrary detentions, fake cordon and search operations, ban on congregations, social media restrictions, and brute physical torture including the indiscriminate use of pellet guns have become a norm there.

In today's modern world of liberty and freedom, "Occupied Jammu and Kashmir" is a "human rights black hole" where life is nothing but pain and misery for the Kashmiris. And all this is being done by India for just one sinister goal of perpetuating its illegal occupation of the region by depriving Kashmiris of their inalienable right to self-determination; the right, promised to them by the United Nations Security Council through its several resolutions.

This epic tragedy in the picturesque Jammu and Kashmir began in 1947. According to the partition formula, the Muslim-majority, geographically contiguous areas had to form an independent state of Pakistan. However, the Hindu ruler of the state of Jammu and Kashmir entered into collusion with India against the will of Muslim majority population of the region. In October 1947, India sent its occupation forces and started a long and dark chapter of illegal occupation.

While taking the matter to the U.N., India's First Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said: "We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. We made this pledge not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it." The U.N. Security Council, after holding marathon discussions on the issue, passed several resolutions necessitating a U.N.-supervised plebiscite in the disputed territory to resolve the conflict in accordance with the will of the Kashmiri people. However, knowing that the will of the people was against it, India reneged upon its commitments given to the Kashmiris and international community. Since then, India has been employing all possible tactics, one after the other, to prolong its illegal occupation of the region.

The most outrageous step, as part of the systematic oppression of Kashmiris, was taken four years ago on Aug. 5, 2019, when India sent an additional hundreds of thousands of its troops to Jammu and Kashmir following its unilateral and illegal attempt to alter the disputed status of the occupied territory. The illegal actions by New Delhi were followed by unprecedented military siege and further draconian curbs on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Kashmiri people including clamping down on communication channels, extra judicial killings of Kashmiris, and incarceration of their leadership. The Indian machinery aimed at changing the demographic composition of the region by settling non-Muslim outsiders in the occupied region to convert local Muslim majority into a minority in their own homeland. Subsequent measures taken by India are all geared toward depriving Kashmiris of their religion, values, language and culture.

These heinous Indian actions are in clear violation of the U.N. Charter; numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions; international law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention, humanitarian norms, and defy all standards of morality. Most importantly, all these steps taken under the facade of normalcy by India have been outrightly rejected by the Kashmiris.

International organizations, media, parliaments, civil societies and world leaders have extensively covered the plight of the Kashmiris under Indian illegal occupation in their detailed reports, articles and speeches. Humanitarian organizations have issued genocide alerts against Kashmiris but the Indian atrocities in Occupied Kashmir see no end.

On the contrary, under the Hindutva-inspired RSS-BJP government in India, hatred toward minorities and their human rights violations, especially Muslims, are growing both in scale and intensity. Not only the Muslims of Occupied Jammu and Kashmir are bearing the brunt of New Delhi's xenophobic and extremist policies, but life for other minorities in different parts of India is also becoming miserable. The deteriorating human rights and humanitarian situation in Jammu and Kashmir and India merits immediate attention of the custodians of international law.

It goes without saying that the world is passing through political and economic upheaval. It is important that in this time of unprecedented flux, the old disputes, whose just and peaceful solutions are long-awaited, must be resolved as a step toward an international order based on rules and justice. As Rousseau stated, "Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains," it is the time that the person who is born free shall remain free in life.

Life under foreign subjugation is life under perpetual fear, an antithesis to human progress. The sooner India understands this, the better it would be for India itself, the entire region and beyond.​
 

Junagadh & Manavadar: A Story of India's Illegal Occupation

Since their independence, Pakistan and India's diplomatic relations have remained strained due to numerous territorial disputes. It has heavily influenced their foreign and security policies towards each other. Kashmir has remained the main point of contention, capturing widespread international attention and scrutiny. Other disputed territories like Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek have also maintained a consistent presence in bilateral dialogue between Pakistan and India over the past three decades. Most recently, these disputes were explicitly included in the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue agenda agreed upon between the two nations in 2015. However, the dispute over Junagadh has largely faded from public discourse despite Pakistan's robust legal position under international law.

In a noteworthy development, Pakistan issued a new political map in 2020 that designates Junagadh and Manavadar (a part of the wider Junagadh area) as Pakistani territory, signalling an intent to bring this dispute back into focus. This Insight explores the origin of the Junagadh dispute and examines its implications under international law.

Origin of the Dispute

Junagadh was classified as a 'princely state' during British colonial rule in the 19th century. It was placed under British suzerainty in 1807, with Nawab of Junagadh retaining control over most of the territory's affairs. At the time of independence, Junagadh had the option of either remaining independent or acceding either to the territory of Pakistan or India under the Indian Independence Act of 1947. On September 14, 1947, Nawab Mahabat Khan of Junagadh signed an Instrument of Accession (IoA) declaring that Junagadh would be part of the Dominion of Pakistan. It was formally accepted a day later by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

"The Instrument of Accession remains as the authoritative legal source to determine the status of Junagadh's sovereignty. Subsequent Indian actions constitute violations of various principles of international law, including the United Nations Charter."

After Nawab's request for accession was granted, the two states of Mangrol and Babariawad declared their independence from the suzerainty of Junagadh. In response, Nawab's forces militarily occupied the two states, escalating the tense situation. A group of Junagadhis, led by Samaldas Gandhi, formed a government-in-exile, the Aarzi Hukumat (temporary government). Soon after, the Indian government dispersed troops in and around Junagadh on September 17, 1947, without the consent of the Junagadh administration. Owing to surmounting pressure from Indian forces, the Dewan (Prime Minister) of Junagadh, Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, relinquished control over Junagadh to India on November 7 and invited India to intervene "in order to avoid bloodshed, hardship, loss of life and property and to preserve the dynasty." When informed of India's decision to take control over Junagadh's administration, Liaquat Ali Khan responded, "Your action in taking over state administration and sending Indian troops to state without any authority from Pakistan Government and indeed without our knowledge, is a clear violation of Pakistan territory and breach of International law." The use of Indian military force to pressure the Junagadh administration to relinquish administrative control over the territory thus constituted a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

Just over three months later, India conducted a plebiscite on February 20, 1948, leading to the annexation of Junagadh. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru informed Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan of an intention to hold a referendum to finalize Junagadh's status. However, Khan disagreed, arguing that it violates international law. Pakistan's consent to the plebiscite was not sought. Sir Walter Monckton, the legal adviser of Mangrol, had informed Mountbatten months before the plebiscite that Pakistan's recognition of a plebiscite was a necessary precondition. It can be likened to similarly illegal plebiscites in Russian-occupied Crimea, where over 90% 'voted' for annexation to Russia. Conducting a plebiscite without the consent of the state that owns territorial sovereignty provides a basis for its illegality. Pakistan has not accepted the plebiscite results, claiming the territory as unlawfully occupied by India.

Demographics and Geography of Junagadh

Before evaluating the legal validity of IoA, it is important to consider Junagadh's demographics and geography. A Muslim ruler governed Junagadh, which had a predominantly Hindu population and had no physical contiguity with Pakistan but could be accessed by sea and air. Its accession with Pakistan was considered a folly by some due to its situation as a small state completely encircled by India's dominion and its Hindu majority, and Mountbatten, the last viceroy of India, also "recommended the princely states consider their accession either to India or Pakistan by the communal allegiance of the people and geographical contiguity."

However, these considerations were recommendations based on political and administrative pragmatism, not legally binding requirements. Mountbatten, along with India's former Defence Minister Gopalaswami Ayyangar, also held the same view that "Junagadh's geographical contiguity could not have 'any standing in law', that is, it was 'strictly and legally correct' for it to have joined Pakistan." Thus, the propositions concerning geographical contiguity and demographic composition were merely advisory in nature and did not represent mandatory legal prerequisites.

While the circumstances cannot be deemed ideal, it would be incorrect to label Junagadh's accession to Pakistan as wholly impractical. The Veraval Port, located in Junagadh, provided the princely state with the potential to establish a simple maritime connection with Pakistan, as "the ships from Karachi covered the distance of 300 knots in six hours." Ian Copland supports this perspective of Junagadh's accession to Pakistan as not completely devoid of practicality in the following words: "Even tiny Junagadh, which, unlike Hyderabad, probably lacked the financial and economic resources to lead an independent existence, could, with a seacoast facing the Arabian sea, conceivably have survived as a part of Pakistan; after all, nearby Diu and Goa lasted as outposts of a much more distant state - Portugal - until 1961."

Legal Status of the Instrument of Accession

From an international law perspective, Nawab Mahabat Khan had the legal capacity to enter into IoA on behalf of Junagadh. As a princely state, Junagadh operated with a considerable degree of autonomy only limited by the British Crown. The Independence of India Act of 1947 differentiates between 'dominions' and 'Indian States', with the former referring to India and Pakistan. Under section 7(I)(b) of the Act, British suzerainty over princely states ended with the independence of India and Pakistan, making them independent autonomous states. Consequently, it allowed these states to either operate independently or to accede to either Pakistan or India under section 2(3) of the Act, subject to the consent of the dominion being acceded to.

In Junagadh's case, Nawab had acted under the legal capacity and authority granted to him by the Independence of India Act of 1947 and had validly executed the IoA. Thus, as reflected by the Ministry of Law at the time, it was clear that "Junagadh's accession to Pakistan had not been nullified by referendum, and the state had not acceded to India yet. However, New Delhi went ahead because "it was almost likely that the referendum will be in [New Delhi's] favour." Nevertheless, this amounted to a unilateral decision that violated the sovereignty of Pakistan based on the IoA.

Internationally, the Kashmir dispute overshadowed the issue of Junagadh. UN Security Council Resolution 47/1948 called for a plebiscite in Kashmir to decide its accession to India or Pakistan. Ayyanger had advised M.K. Vellodi, India's representative to the UNSC at the time, on "the need' as far as possible to avoid being drawn into legalistic arguments as regards the validity of Junagadh's accession to Pakistan for its impact on Kashmir." It shows that Indian leaders were fully cognizant of their illegal actions and did not want to bring up the issue of Junagadh's accession to the UNSC.

Analysis

Overshadowed by the more high-profile Kashmir conflict, the Junagadh dispute has been relegated to the margins of Pakistan's foreign policy agenda, receiving scant attention and resources. It has led to its political neglect, diminishing its prominence in diplomatic dialogues and international legal debates.

The issuance of a new political map by Pakistan in 2020, which significantly features Junagadh and Manavadar, is a positive development since maps under international law are recognized to be the most formal evidence of a State's intent and nature of claim over territory. Pakistan's state practice should reflect its territorial claim by continuing to confer the status of 'Sovereign in Exile' upon the Nawab of Junagadh.

Besides the addition of Junagadh to the new political map, September 15 should be notified as "Junagadh Day" by the government, and steps should be taken to include Junagadh's history and legal status in the academic curriculum to create awareness regarding the issue.

With the death of Muhammad Jahangir Khanji in July 2023, it is imperative for Pakistan to promptly issue an official declaration acknowledging his successor as the legitimate heir to Junagadh State. The new Nawab should be extended invitations for all significant State ceremonies, particularly those organized outside of Pakistan, to enhance global awareness of Nawab's status as Sovereign in Exile and India's continued territorial violation.

In conclusion, Junagadh's legal status is that it is part of Pakistan. The IoA remains as the authoritative legal source to determine the status of Junagadh's sovereignty. Subsequent Indian actions constitute violations of various principles of international law, including the central UN Charter principle of respecting territorial integrity and political independence of states. Using coercion to unlawfully annex territory without due process reflects the unfortunate reality of realpolitik and weak enforcement mechanisms. Together, these factors obstruct the enforcement of this vital international law principle aimed at safeguarding states against unlawful territorial aggression and facilitating peaceful resolution of conflicts.

In light of evolving geopolitical dynamics, it becomes imperative for Pakistan to adopt a consistent legal approach to documenting its territorial claims, whether they pertain to mainland disputes, glaciers, or maritime boundaries. The political map in 2020 was a positive step, but a more comprehensive legislative instrument could provide a stronger basis for Pakistan's claim under international law. India's unilateral measures in Jammu and Kashmir, enacted through the Reorganization Act of 2019, underscore the critical importance of solidifying territorial claims through both legislative and executive actions. Moreover, China's recent move to rename locations in Arunachal Pradesh in April 2023 is a timely reminder that India's actions have had repercussions, prompting other states to reassert their territorial claims. These developments collectively highlight the need for Pakistan to take the documentation of its territorial claims thoughtfully, particularly as state practices evolve in a complex and interconnected international landscape.​
 

Manavadar is a city and a municipality in Junagadh district of India.

History

Bantva Manavadar was a princely state of British India. Founded in 1733, it became a British protectorate in 1818. On 25 September 1947, it acceded to the newly formed Pakistan. However, Indian forces entered the area on the grounds that the state was a vassal of the Junagadh state, which was itself a vassal of the Baroda state that had acceded to India. This land is still considered a disputed area between India and Pakistan.


It was also known as the Asia's third center for cotton ginning. It contained almost around more than 75 ginning factories of cotton.

Pakistan's government has maintained its territorial claim on Manavadar, along with Junagadh State and Sir Creek in Gujarat, on its official political map.

Geography

Manavadar is located at 21.5°N 70.13°E. It has an average elevation of 24 metres (78 feet).

Demographics

As of 2001 India census, Manavadar had a population of 27,559. Males constitute 52% of the population and females 48%. Manavadar has an average literacy rate of 82%, higher than the national average of 59.5%: male literacy is 76%, and female literacy is 63%. In Manavadar, 12% of the population is under 6 years of age.

It has developed cotton industry and cotton and groundnut are the most cash crops of the area. The town was famous once upon a time due to its vegetable ghee industries, but in winds and sweeps of economic reform in India, all three units has been closed. Manavadar taluk have big towns or villages like Bantwa, Nanadiya, Khambhla, Nakara, Pajod, Jilana, Sardargadh, Velva, Kodvav (List of Indian Princely States), Mitdi, Limbuda, Indra, Sherdi, Bhimora, Bodka (Swamina), Galvav, Sanosara, Koyalana (Ghed), Zinzari, Chudva, Khadiya, Vadala, Sitana, Bhitana, and Padaradi (Ghed) (પાદરડી-ઘેડ).​
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back