Nizam Osman Ali Khan was the leader of the Hindu majority state of Hyderabad, and his policies were dominated by the Muslim elite. Muslims in Ittehad ul, a powerful pro-Nizam Muslim party, insisted that Hyderabad remain an independent state on an equal footing with India and Pakistan. The Indian government rejected Nizam`s company as a “legalistic claim of dubious validity.” It argued that Hyderabad`s strategic position could easily be used by foreign interests to threaten India. Nizam was prepared to enter into a limited contract with India, respecting Hyderabad`s neutrality in the event of a conflict between India and Pakistan. India objected on the grounds that other states would require similar concessions. A temporary status quo agreement has been signed. In December 1947, India accused Hyderabad of repeatedly violating the agreement. In 1948, the situation continued to deteriorate. The Indian army was sent to Hyderabad in Operation Polo because of a worrying situation. The troops took full control of the state. Nizam was maintained as head of state in the same way as the other princes who joined India. He dismissed the complaints made for fear of an invasion of the UN Security Council. In June 1947, about 60,000 former members of the army (mainly from Poonch) had launched a tax campaign against the Maharajah.
The campaign then turned into a secessionist movement after 14 and 15 August, when Muslims in Poonch waved Pakistani flags. The Maharaja imposed martial law on Poonch, which further angered Muslims. With ammunition and personal support from members of pakistan`s NWFP tribe, the situation has become more complex, according to Victoria Schofield`s book in Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War. However, India refused to sign the agreement and asked Maharaja to send its representative to Delhi for further discussions. “The Indian government would appreciate it if you and another minister duly authorized on this behalf could travel to Delhi to negotiate a status quo agreement between the Kashmir government and Indian rule. Early measures are desirable to keep existing administrative agreements and arrangements intact,” he said. But no representative of J-K visited Delhi to negotiate. The accession instrument signed by the Maharaja, with its own single clauses, was seen as a quasi-temporary agreement between J-K and India, but just like other princely states, namely Hyderabad and Travancore, they had their own clauses, which were inserted into their accession instruments, which were watered down when the time came and that these princely states were entirely part of India`s constitution. , as well as the J-K membership clauses. In this sense, the current revocation of Article 370 is exactly under the constitution of India and it is high time that Kashmiris accepted that they are legitimate citizens of India and that they deny the external influences that indoctrinate them and strive to lead peaceful and prosperous lives. The entire Indian nation will support them in this regard.
In declaring that the accession instrument was signed on 26 October, when it clearly did not, Pakistan considers that India has not shown good faith and that, therefore, this invalidates the accession instrument. After Jyoti Bhusan The Book of Jammu and Kashmir in Gupta, However, Mountbatten warned that it would be “dangerous to send troops if Kashmir had not offered to join first”, arguing that this would lead to a war between India and Pakistan. He proposed that accession be considered provisional and “if law and order had been restored in Kashmir, a referendum on the future of Kashmir should be held.” Menon then flew to Jammu to discuss the Maharaja`s opinion of the government, then the Maharaja finally signed the accession instrument on October 26 and Menon returned to Delhi with Mahajan.