Countdown to end of 2025: 66 days
Getting better but still 5 hours and 22 minutes behind optimum level. The body has to adjust despite a flu, which really isn't an excuse.
Being in the city centre of Dadyaal - despite being protected by soil, grass and date palm trees - I do take in vehicle fumes at a distance. A smog meter of sorts would be handy. Though I cannot think of a better venue to centralise the ideas behind the urgency needed, to move towards a genuinely free government.
....
Over the past few days an interesting debate was invoked on the issue of whether the Indian Princely States were given the right of independence by the departing colonial British empire in 1947. I have re-produced some of the most important aspects of the debate, which were essentially between 4 people:
1) Javed Inayat (J I)
2) Barrister Asif Khan (B A)
3) Whirling Dervish (W D)
4) Myself (T A)
I will use the initials cited above to attribute each respective person's contributions.
25/10/2025
J I
I have spoken about this partition plan and division of Jammu and Kashmir state as well. It is not true that princely states of Indian subcontinent had given the right to remain stay independent countries. It wrong perception drawn from Indian independent act.
..
This provoked me to share the letter that I had written to the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales from Mirpur Jail on the 31st of March 2021. It is available to read at the following link on this weblog.
..
26/10/2025
B A (Responding to J I)
Javed sahib, the Indian independence Act, like any other parliamentary piece of Legislation is open to interpretation, and if one studies the wording of the Indian independence Act, there is more than necessary use of legal language to give the Indian princely states for them to remain independent, if they so wished, it is unfortunate that the rules of these states did not raise legal challenges. If may suggest, you’re looking at the Indian independence Act from political point of view, and the British and the Indian dominion’s policies point of view, which is not a legal stand point.
..
B A (Responding to J I)
Javed Sahib, point to the legal position within the British Indian independence Act whereby the position of the provinces directly ruled by the British, and the princely states is one and the same, and the treaty positions between the British government and the princely States? The Indian independence Act clearly sets out the separation between the defined status of the dominions and the princely states. Sir talk legal not politics, that is the language the occupiers, not of those illegally occupied.
..
B A (Responding to J I)
Salaams young sir, you’re talking politics, I am talking law, law is above politics, and it challenges both the Indian and Pakistani myths about the State of Jammu Kashmir being theirs’, all the research, by competent scholars shows that legally the State had by 15/08/1947 established it’s independence nature as established by the law of partition under the Indian independence Act, and I personally thinking that, it is an Indian narrative (much later realised by Mountbatten, after the pigeon left the cage) that they, then changed their mind on the legality of either dominions’ claim, so then came the political pressure, with stick and carrot, but young sir even today the legal position remains that under the Indian independence Act, the British divided what was theirs into two domains, India and Pakistan, where as the suzerainty (relationship) came to an end.
The princely states had their own individual characteristics, which legally made it difficult for the British to force their accession to either of the new domains. I think your are confusing the rights of the princely state whilst they were under the British empirical arrangement, whereby they had a variant internal autonomies, but externally the British ran the foreign affairs, but, and a very big but sir, that position could not, legally continue under the Indian independence Act, because the legislature failed to take into account the legally binding agreements (because the Indian independence Act was passed in such hurry, therefore was no detailed scrutiny, read the British Parliamentary Hansard) between the rules of the states and the British crown, therefore, when they realised what had happened, they try to reverse the legal position by persuasion, political pressure and political policy.
..
J I (Responding to B A)
This is a wishful thinking that princely states were not part of British but India was own by British. It is deep rooted Muslim separatism hiding behind British imperialism that is the reason yiu consider Jammu and Kashmir a separate entity even though it was Indian region. It was British crime to create fake narrative of Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism and its direct result is further regionalism and separatism. Indian partition has not been successful how can an artificial state that has not been accepted by its own majority population can become a country. I think it was British imperialism that has created so many smaller countries so that they control them easily. They already had divided India due to saving its imperial project. If go by law , state already had acceded to India and no one ever challenged it.
We can live with wishful thinking but it would not become reality as 8 decades has gone passed .
..
T A (Responding to B A)
This is a good explanation, although in the nature and skill of British 'double-speak' they couldn't find a 'legal' way of dividing Jammu & Kashmir. They resorted to intrigue of the highest order to manage the entry and subsequent consolidation of India and Pakistan in our territory.
Constitutionally, the UK government, India and Pakistan are in a knot once you scrutinise each of their positions. In a peaceful, ethical, democratic and legal struggle; this is our strength and their weakness.
..
T A (Responding to J I)
You are using the wrong parameters to decide whether or not JKA can be independent. Going by this logic, no country in the world has a right to Independence. A million reasons can be given as to why India should not exist as it does.
What you are saying is highly subjective and essentially political opinion, which of course you are totally entitled to express and convince others if they agree.
..
T A (Responding to J I)
Please also refer to the text of the inaugural arguments given by Gopalaswamy Ayyangar (Indian representative at the UN in 1948).
Singapore is a very small country (278 sq miles) but per capita GDP and in terms of the quality of governance, it is a million miles ahead of India.
We will also surpass per capita GDP of both India and Pakistan, almost at the outset of Independence.
Please do not demean the idea of Independence just because 2 nation theory infused nationalists in our midst have got it all wrong.
..
T A (Responding to J I)
Having said all that, there is a lot of substance in much of what you say and write, though you cannot pick and choose who has a right to Independence and who doesn't. Even a village can be independent if that is in its best interests. There are quite a few examples of village size countries in the world.
Besides, there are solid ecological compulsions for us to be separate from India and Pakistan. Look at how puzzled India is in dealing with Sonam Wangchuk, the foremost ecological expert in our country (subject to the people's reference of course).
..
W D (Responding to T A)
After reading your letter, I realized the nature of your work. Having carefully read your letter in full, I found myself in a position to respond thoughtfully not merely as a reader, but as someone deeply connected to the moral and historical question you have raised. In an age where slogans often replace substance, your letter to the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales stands out as a rare and courageous act of intellectual responsibility. It marks the moment when a Kashmiri voice sought to engage not through emotion or violence, but through law, history, and moral reasoning and for that, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed you deserve genuine appreciation. Your letter reopens a fundamental legal and ethical question,
What was the true status of Jammu and Kashmir under the Indian Independence Act of 1947, particularly Article 7(1)(b)
If British paramountcy legally lapsed without transferring sovereignty to either India or Pakistan, then Jammu and Kashmir, in constitutional logic, entered a brief but real moment of independence a moment that was soon lost under geopolitical pressure, war, and intrigue. This argument, whether one fully agrees or not, has reignited an important debate, one that the subcontinent has long tried to suppress under competing nationalisms. By invoking the spirit of constitutional law and by appealing to the moral responsibility of the former colonial power, you invite the world to reconsider Kashmir not as a territorial dispute, but as an unresolved question of decolonisation.
Every conscious and educated citizen of Jammu and Kashmir carries the weight of this unfinished history. To question it, to reinterpret it, and to articulate it within international legal and moral frameworks is not an act of defiance — it is an act of intellectual fidelity to truth. What Mr. Tanveer Ahmed’s initiative demonstrates is that independence need not begin with flags or borders, but with clarity and courage of thought. Your engagement with international law, treaties, and moral accountability marks an attempt to lift Kashmir’s struggle above the din of propaganda and partisanship.
I must say that your letter, therefore, is not merely a document of protest, it is an invitation to dialogue. It calls upon jurists, scholars, and moral thinkers to re-examine the foundational legal assumptions surrounding Kashmir, and to do so with integrity, humility, and historical consciousness.
Having read and reflected upon it, I must acknowledge that Tanveer Ahmed’s courage has opened a new intellectual space one rooted in law, guided by ethics, and sustained by reason. From such spaces, the moral and political architecture of a just future for Jammu and Kashmir may yet begin to emerge.
..
W D
We must need to understand the constitutional and moral Status of the State of Jammu & Kashmir and it has deep roots with the Indian Independence Act of 1947. If the Indian Independence Act of 1947 had truly been intended to bring freedom, Britain should have ensured a separate transfer of power agreement with each princely state.
Instead, it created a collective legal arrangement, making the future of all princely states dependent solely on the two newly created Dominions-India and Pakistan.
This was, in fact, the most sophisticated form of colonial continuity, because under the guise of independence, political dependency was merely redesigned. In the case of Jammu & Kashmir, this contradiction becomes most visible. The state’s legal existence was rooted in the British Crown’s suzerainty. When that suzerainty lapsed, the state automatically became sovereign. Yet, political forces attempted to fill this legal vacuum through the fictional Instrument of Accession- a device that was neither constitutional nor lawful.
The Instrument of Accession was the document through which a princely state could voluntarily accede to either Dominion. This concept originated in the Government of India Act of 1935, but the Indian Independence Act of 1947 made no mention of it whatsoever.
Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu & Kashmir is said to have signed an Instrument of Accession to India on October 26, 1947. However, The state at that time was engulfed in civil unrest and rebellion, The Maharaja had already lost effective administrative control. He had fled from Srinagar to Jammu and was ruling in exile.
According to established legal principles, no ruler who has lost de facto authority over his territory can enter into a binding international agreement. This is precisely the argument made by Tanveer Ahmad in his 31 March 2021 letter to the British judiciary
“At the time of the alleged accession, the ruler of Jammu & Kashmir did not possess lawful authority over his territory; hence, the accession is void ab initio.”
The United Nations, through its 1948 and 1949 resolutions, declared clearly that the future of the State of Jammu & Kashmir must be decided through a free and impartial plebiscite, Both India and Pakistan must withdraw their forces, The final status of the state could be determined only after such a vote. These resolutions implicitly recognized that the State of Jammu & Kashmir was not part of any country. In other words, the UN acknowledged the legal vacuum that the Indian Independence Act had left unresolved. However, India later violated these resolutions by establishing military occupation under the pretext of constitutional integration.
This represents nothing less than colonial occupation by another name where one empire is replaced by a state-based imperialism.
The British Parliament, as the legislative author of the Indian Independence Act, remains morally and legally accountable for its consequences.
Had Britain provided clear constitutional guarantees to the princely states during the transfer of power, neither Kashmir nor several other postcolonial disputes would have emerged.
Tanveer saab has highlighted this in his letter in a very efficient way.
“The British Crown, in abdicating suzerainty without establishing a successor framework for the princely states, committed an act of political negligence with continuing humanitarian consequences.”
This was not merely a historical oversight, but a moral crime one that has led to mass suffering, endless wars, and generations of people condemned to live under occupation. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 was, in reality, not a freedom act but a colonial partition act.
As leading scholars such as Prof. Ian Brownlie, A. G. Noorani, and Victor Kiernan have noted. The Act preserved the princely states as subordinate entities. Britain intentionally kept the concept of sovereignty ambiguous, So that political and military interventions could continue whenever needed.
According to Article 1(2) of the UN Charter (1945), every people has the “right of self-determination.”
The Indian Independence Act, however, deliberately ignored this right in the case of the princely states.
This contradiction still stands as a legal and moral challenge before British courts today.
The struggle of Kashmir is not merely a territorial dispute but a postcolonial struggle for identity and justice.
It is a region that simultaneously bears the legal ambiguity of British imperialism, the military domination of India, and the geopolitical hypocrisy of global powers.
Your case serve as reminders that the people of Jammu & Kashmir are not just fighting for political rights, they are fighting against the entire legacy of colonial deception that began in 1846 with the Treaty of Amritsar and continued through the Indian Independence Act of 1947.
..
B A (Responding to J I)
Javed sahib salaams, I understand your British perspective, but you totally and absolutely missed my point, sometimes the greatest of minds make terrible mistakes, even scientists who are always in search of absolute truths, believe in mistaken theories for decades, even centuries, it doesn’t mean that they right. Your point about the British design to keep India disunited by creating unreal identities such as the princely states, to some extent maybe right, but when was India a united nation, ever in history, other that mythical Mahabharata time or possibly during the brutal Ashoka period, India has always been a nation of many many different races, cultures, languages, borders and so, the British simply took that already existing concept a stage further, as did the Indian Union, by breaking up the state structures, and taking everyone for a ride back in mythology. Young sir, India was never a name of a country, but a continent, with majority and mixture of Hinduism, as Europe, Africa, Latin America and so on. As you know, despite the religious divides, Muslim Punjabis today are more closer to their Sikhs co-regionalists, Hindu Bengalis are more close to the Muslim in Bangladesh than their co-religionists in the rest of India, sir therefore, political systems may divide and rule, but hearts and minds of people do not change so quickly, may take millennia.
Back to my original point, although the British created these entities in subcontinent of India, the way the British legal system and legislature works, these entities (princely states) took on identities of their own. In order to undo these legal identities, a very special and specific kind of act of parliament was needed, even then there is a legal rule or retrospectives, you cannot undo, what is done. However, in the case of the princely states the British could have overcome this principle, but because each princely states had different types of legal agreements with the British Crown, each was a potential legal challenge, so they took the easy root out, we rescind all our agreements with the princes, Maharajas and Nawabs, they ended their suzerainty, and all these large and small entities gained their individual statuses. The Maharaja of Jammu Kashmir had his education in the UK, he understood his and his States position very well, and that is why he stood his solid ground of wanting to remain independent, not joining either of new British babies.
The only problem was that he didn’t have a large army, and what he did have became religiously divided, hence the division of our state. Young Sir I have been studying these aspects of the division of the subcontinent for many years, and from different angles, and it is narrative of the Indian Congress Party, and now others that India was a one unit and the legal position of these smaller entities did not, in actual fact matter or exist, I am truly surprised that an academic mind as yours has taken in this argument. Pakistan and India have now legal arguments? Only religious and political, which I am afraid don’t hold water. Mine is not a wishful thinking, it is based on legal principles, which, the cleverest of the cleaver human minds trapped themselves in. Further as to our current position, Belgium, in Europe was never a country, both Germany and France fought many wars over the territory dividing them, in the end they came to the conclusion that an independent Belgium was the only solution to their problems.
..
JI
Yes, we think we had given three options legally but in fact, non has been been provided to us until today. People of the state had divided opinions before 1947 and after as well. British had its own designs and they had done whatever suited them. Indians had neither liberated their country nor overthrown British colonial system but they had sided with British imperial project and divided their country. Muslim community of subcontinent and Jammu and Kashmir arguing that India was not one country in history. Had there been Pakistan one country in history? How can we consider Jammu and Kashmir one country? Only because state has majority Muslim population. Why do not Hindu, Sikh, Buddhists do not like Muslim of the JK state? Only Muslim mind set is separatist because it has roots in religious hatred and majority does not like to live with Dar ul Kuffar but do we think any country where ever is Muslim population let them make their own country? As Tanveer Ahmed said that we can make every village a country ? What is this all about and where it comes from? Muslim have been made tools of imperial powers everywhere even today due to their religious teachings . They think their religion can only makes Muslim good if they do not live with non Muslims.
..
W D (Responding to B A)
Barrister Sahib,
Salutations and sincere thanks for your detailed and well-argued note. Your exposition reflects a deep understanding of British constitutional law and the colonial legal framework that shaped the fate of the princely states. I appreciate your clarity and the historical precision with which you’ve presented the British position.
However, I would like to humbly differ on a few fundamental grounds historical, philosophical, and political.
First, you rightly mention that India was never a united nation and that the British only extended an already diverse subcontinental mosaic. But that same argument also implies that the princely states were not artificial creations of the British, rather, they were localised expressions of pre-existing sovereignty that the British formalised for their administrative convenience. Thus, when the British “withdrew suzerainty,” they did not create independence, they left behind a vacuum of authority- a political ambiguity-that was immediately filled by competing nationalisms (Indian and Pakistani). Second, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir may have understood his legal position, but law without power is merely paper, as history has repeatedly shown. The British legal system, however precise, could not ensure moral justice or political continuity for small states once the imperial order collapsed. What followed was not legality, but the rule of force- and in that arena, princely logic perished. Third, while your argument rests on the principle of legal continuity, it somewhat ignores the principle of popular sovereignty — which, even if imperfectly represented, was the moral foundation of post-colonial statehood. The right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir -whether expressed, suppressed, or divided -remains the central question.
Without addressing that moral core, the legality of 1947 becomes a technical debate without human meaning.
Lastly, I fully agree that neither India nor Pakistan holds an unshakable legal or moral claim over the entire State. But that also means the third voice the voice of the people of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be dismissed as a “one-sided” approach. Independence, in its truest sense, is not an ideology it is a moral demand for neutrality, a space between competing empires, where justice and memory can coexist. Therefore, while legality may define the past, moral sovereignty must define the future. And the future of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be resolved by returning to colonial legal structures — it must be reimagined through an act of collective political renewal, grounded in the lived experience of its people, not the dead letters of imperial law.
..
W D
It is true that the Indian, Pakistani, and Independence narratives are all one-sided, for each party views the issue from its own angle and refuses to acknowledge the moral and historical truth of the other.
But history teaches us that one-sided ideologies never endure, especially when they ignore human realities, the geography of life, and the will of the people. Indeed, neither India can reclaim Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, nor can Pakistan conquer Indian-controlled Kashmir. Both possess strong military holds.
But in other side we must believe that power cannot bury truth forever, it can only create temporary arrangements, not solutions. The issue of Jammu & Kashmir is more a question of consciousness than geography -a consciousness shattered by British colonial manipulation, religious nationalism, and internal weakness. The Muslim nationalism of the subcontinent created a psychological division-a perpetual “we versus they.”
British colonial policy deepened this divide. Both Hindu and Muslim nationalisms refused to recognize the plural, multilingual, and multicultural nature of Jammu & Kashmir.
Thus, a state that was once bound together more by culture, water, and mountains than by religion, was torn apart along religious lines.
The point of my conversation is Tanveer Ahmed’s argument deserves attention, The Indian Independence Act of 1947 legally restored sovereignty to all princely states. If this interpretation is valid, Britain failed in its moral responsibility — it did not allow the principle of independence to be fully realized. Subsequently, both India and Pakistan inherited the colonial system, and under it, the people of Kashmir remain in a state of continued political servitude. We have only Slogan of Independence and Its Practical Weakness. The idea of independence is morally powerful but practically weak and fragmented. Two reasons stand out Lack of unity and organization among Kashmiri leadership and the dominance of Indian or Pakistani identity at the popular level. When the idea of independence lacks collective consensus, it remains only a slogan, not a movement. We need the new direction, Tri-Party Equilibrium
To move forward, all three parties — India, Pakistan, and the People of J&K — must establish a new intellectual foundation. India must accept that loyalty cannot be purchased through force or constitutional coercion. Pakistan must realize that religious emotion and proxy wars cannot build a nation.
Kashmiris must understand that their liberation lies in moral superiority, intellectual unity, and wise diplomacy — not in the gun or the slogan.
Without a moral and political equilibrium among the three, the conflict will persist. The only viable path for the State of Jammu & Kashmir involves Redefining self-determination according to geographical and cultural realities, Considering a federal or confederation model of autonomy, And exploring the concept of an internationally recognized buffer peace zone or neutral autonomous territory.
..
B A (Addressing J I)
Javed sahib Salaams, I asked a very simple question, what solution do you, as a Jammu Kashmir academic and thinker see, and would propagate for a permanent solution of our homeland? The fact that India, Pakistan are extremely powerful, and have very tight grip over their respective illegally occupied areas of Jammu Kashmir. What is our narrative, as against that of India and Pakistan?
..
27/10/2025
J I (Responding to B A)
I have suggested few solutions but it is not going work like that as dispute is still bilateral and both powerful parties are not ready to accept it as a trilateral dispute . I think that its nature is trilateral and its solution should be coming up according to its nature. My understanding is that dispute cannot be a solution. If independence is a solution , do India , Pakistan two powerful parties would accept it? Accession to one country or the other will be not be accepted by pro independence and one of the claimant country. Dispute can only end when three parties are agreed to a solution that suits all of involved parties
..
B A (Responding to J I)
Salaams and Adabs young sir, from your responses, I understand you’re not going to answer my legal, political, social or personal stand point, and I find that an astonishing position for an intelligent, intellectual and an academic mind like yours. People in your shoes should be giving solid, concrete ideas, and clear and precise narrative for activists and others to follow, but if you yourself are in fluffy and in the clouds ideas, what can we say about others who have on many occasions lead us astray? Bilateralism is our occupiers problem, what is our position on the status of our homeland, where are currently, where do we want to go, and what steps, plans and routes we should adopt to get to our goal? If we can’t get that from our academics and intellectuals who should we look to? I do apologise if I have took up these unworthy topics for discussion in the group.
..
W D (Addressing B A)
Our original topic was a letter by Mr. Tanveer, which he had addressed to the Chief Justice of England. Our purpose was to read this letter and present our perspective based on its facts, arguments, and legal points. Unfortunately, the discussion veered in another direction and deviated from the core legal and analytical matter. In this forum, our role should have been to examine the legal standing of the document, its historical and constitutional aspects, and the current legal and political issues of Jammu and Kashmir, in order to provide a detailed analysis that would enable an effective, logical, and intellectual debate.
..
J I
We are open to every aspect of JK dispute as well as multiple solutions . But we should not forget that we the people of divided state still are voiceless.
..
T A (Responding to J I)
We all have a voice and every voice is important. That is why all our aspiring citizen's voices must be documented. That is when the world will take us seriously enough to accept our #Right2Rule in the shape of #PopularSovereignty .
We live in the most precious territory in the world.
If there is a government that operates on transparency, inclusivity, meritocracy and accountability within this most precious territory, we can all help in delivering sustainable peace to this region.
Something the world has failed in so far.
The world and especially the British know how amenable we have been in past history to negotiate in our personal interest with foreign entities, while sacrificing public interest and any possibility of 'national' interest.
The world politically manipulates us and our resources because we the public - despite being widely complicit in deposing autocracy in our territory, we told the world we preferred autocracy in a more complex form, involving our neighbouring countries as well as all significant powers in the world.
Result has been an era of conflict from 1947 to 2025.
The people of #AJK can deliver peace to this region. That is power.
..
J I (Responding to T A)
These big claims but in fact , this territory has kind of population that goes to become labourer in other countries but they would not demand anything in AJK since 78 years. Only saying that our territory is precious is not enough but to proving it is not possible. More than 90% of its work force skilled or unskilled working out side the territory.
..
T A (Responding to J I)
That I agree with. That is why I am trying to build a skilled workforce of 2,000 co-citizens who would become experts in data, soil, waste and water management.
That is why I have invested so much time, effort and whatever resources have been available to me to re-found The University of Sharda - historically a globally pre-eminent centre of learning.
Our strategy is:
Peace > Education > Economics > Power (recognition & dignity)
..
J I (Responding to T A)
I do not want to discourage you but I fell sorry for you because your level intelligent person, your dedication for your people , your region and its outcome makes me so angry. You could have been in any society, your services might have produced great results but this society is so backward and could not value your nature of work.
But you may change your strategy and may get more positive results.
I remember a line of poetry of Ajmal Khattak.
He said in his poetry about his Pashtun people . My people are not that much smart and sensible due to their innocence and misguided by others that is why they are not able to understand my point of view . But one day they might get smarter and understand my work and make it a valuable one. It is very similar case with you I guess. You are far ahead from this backward society.
..
T A (Responding to J I)
That may be the case but effort and work for any given people must be done regardless of the odds.
Every given society needs such people and somebody has to take it upon themselves, especially if no one else is willing to do so.
Ultimately, the success or failure of any public interest project relies on the people who it is being done for.
..end of conversation
....
No comments:
Post a Comment