Accession of Jammu and Kashmir

The historical and legal journey of Jammu and Kashmir from a sovereign princely state to an integral part of the Republic of India is a subject of immense importance for civil services aspirants and scholars of Indian polity. This transition, which officially culminated on October 26, 1947, is not merely a date in a calendar but a complex narrative involving the lapse of British paramountcy, tribal aggression, and the visionary leadership of the founding fathers of modern India. 

Understanding this accession requires a deep dive into the valley’s ancient roots, the administrative shifts of the 19th century, and the constitutional evolution that continues to shape the region’s contemporary identity.   

The Historical Foundations of the Kashmir Valley

To comprehend the political decisions of 1947, one must first appreciate the deep-seated cultural and historical identity of Kashmir, often referred to as Kashmiriyat. The valley’s history is unique in the Indian subcontinent due to the existence of early chronicles like the Nilmat Puran and Kalhana’s Rajatarangini. According to these ancient texts, the valley was originally a vast lake known as Satisar. The mythology records that the saint Rishi Kashyap drained this lake by killing the demon Jalod Bowa, allowing people to settle in the fertile basin. This geological legend is reflected in the etymology of the name ‘Kashmir’, where ‘Ka’ signifies water and ‘shimeera’ means to desiccate, implying a land reclaimed from water.   

Throughout the ancient and medieval periods, Kashmir was a center of Sanskrit learning and Buddhist philosophy. The Mauryan Emperor Ashoka founded the original city of Srinagar, then known as Purandisthan or Pandrethan. The region saw the rise of the Karkota dynasty, most notably under Lalitaditya Muktapida (724–761 A.D.), who is frequently compared to Samudra Gupta for his vast imperial conquests and the construction of the magnificent Martand Sun Temple. The transition to Islamic rule began in the 14th century with the establishment of the Shah Mir dynasty by Sultan Shamas-ud-din in 1339. The most celebrated of these rulers was Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin (1420–1470), who earned the title Budshah (the Great King) for his progressive administration and religious pluralism.   

The subsequent integration of Kashmir into the Mughal Empire under Akbar in 1587 brought a period of architectural and cultural flowering, evident in the famous Shalimar and Nishat gardens commissioned by Jahangir and the Chashma-shahi by Shah Jahan. However, the fall of the Mughals led to the Afghan or Pathan rule (1752–1819), a period often described as the darkest in Kashmiri history due to widespread brutality and administrative decay. This was followed by the Sikh rule under Maharaja Ranjit Singh, which lasted until 1846, when the Treaty of Amritsar transferred the territory to Gulab Singh, the founder of the Dogra dynasty, under British suzerainty.   

Chronological Overview of Governance in Kashmir

The Lapse of Paramountcy and the Princely State Dilemma

The year 1947 marked a pivotal turning point for the 560+ princely states of India. Under the Indian Independence Act, the British Crown’s suzerainty over these states lapsed on August 15, 1947. The states were released from their treaty obligations and were legally free to join either of the newly created dominions—India or Pakistan—or to remain independent. Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy, advised the princes that while they were legally independent, geographical contiguity and the communal composition of their populations should guide their decision toward accession.   

Jammu and Kashmir, under Maharaja Hari Singh, presented a unique challenge. Unlike many other states that decided their future before August 15, Hari Singh remained indecisive. His hesitation stemmed from a desire to maintain the state’s independence, potentially envisioning a neutral status similar to Switzerland. To buy time and ensure administrative continuity, the Maharaja proposed a Standstill Agreement to both India and Pakistan on August 12, 1947. Pakistan, eager to incorporate the Muslim-majority state, accepted the agreement on August 15. India, however, adopted a more cautious approach, requesting the Maharaja to send a representative to Delhi for discussions before formalizing such an arrangement.   

The implications of this delay were profound. While the Standstill Agreement was intended to maintain the status quo in communications and supplies, Pakistan soon began to use economic coercion to force the Maharaja’s hand. Supplies of essential goods like salt, petrol, and food grains were throttled, and the communication links through the Punjab were disrupted. This economic strangulation was a precursor to a more violent attempt to seize the territory.   

Operation Gulmarg and the Tribal Invasion

The internal stability of Jammu and Kashmir was shattered in October 1947. On October 22, a large-scale invasion was launched from Pakistan, involving thousands of tribal militants from the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), primarily Pathans. This operation, covertly organized and supported by the Pakistani military, was codenamed ‘Operation Gulmarg’. The invaders were well-armed with modern weaponry, including machine guns and mortars, and were led by Pakistani military officers in plain clothes.   

The invaders moved rapidly through Muzaffarabad and Domel, committing horrific atrocities against the civilian population. One of the most tragic episodes occurred in Baramulla, where approximately 11,000 residents were massacred, and the Mohra power station—the primary source of electricity for Srinagar—was destroyed. The panic-stricken Maharaja, realizing that his own state forces under General Henry Lawrence Scott were insufficient to repel the invaders, fled Srinagar for Jammu on October 25. It was at this critical juncture that he made a desperate appeal to the Government of India for military assistance.   

The Indian response was guided by legal propriety. In a meeting of the Defence Committee on October 25, 1947, chaired by Lord Mountbatten, it was decided that Indian troops could not be sent to a territory that was not legally part of the Indian Union. V.P. Menon, the Secretary of the Ministry of States, was sent to Jammu to obtain the Maharaja’s formal consent for accession.   

The Legal Instrument of Accession: October 26, 1947

On October 26, 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession (IoA), a standardized legal document used by all princely states to join the Union of India. This document, executed under the Government of India Act 1935 as adapted by the Indian Independence Act 1947, officially transferred the state’s sovereignty to the Dominion of India in three critical areas: Defence, External Affairs, and Communications.   

The IoA was composed of several essential clauses that defined the constitutional bridge between the state and the Union :   

1. Clause 1: The Maharaja declared his accession to the Dominion of India, acknowledging the authority of the Governor-General, the Dominion Legislature, and the Federal Court over the state for the purposes of the Union.   
2. Clause 3: The Ruler accepted the matters specified in the Schedule (Defence, External Affairs, and Communications) as the subjects on which the Dominion Legislature could legislate for the state.   
3. Clause 5: This clause ensured that the terms of the accession could not be altered by any future amendment of the Indian Independence Act or the Government of India Act 1935 unless the Ruler signed a supplementary instrument.   
4. Clause 7: Crucially for future constitutional debates, this clause stated that nothing in the Instrument committed the state to the acceptance of any future Constitution of India, nor did it restrict the Ruler’s discretion to enter into future arrangements with the Indian government.   
5. Clause 8: This reaffirmed the Maharaja’s continued sovereignty and powers within the state in all matters not surrendered to the Union.   
6. Clause 9: Specified that the document was signed by the Maharaja on behalf of the state and was binding on his heirs and successors.   

Lord Mountbatten accepted the Instrument of Accession on October 27, 1947. In his accompanying letter, he made a famous (and politically complex) statement regarding the government’s wish that as soon as law and order were restored and the soil cleared of the invader, the question of the state’s accession should be settled by a “reference to the people”. While this “reference” was intended as a democratic gesture, the legal integration was complete and final the moment the signature was accepted.   

The Indian Military Response: The Airlift and the First War

The ink on the accession document was barely dry when India launched one of the most remarkable military operations in its history. On the morning of October 27, 1947, the Indian Air Force and private civil airlines began airlifting the 1st Sikh Regiment to Srinagar. The troops landed just in time to secure the airfield and prevent the invaders from capturing the capital city.   

This intervention was bolstered by the local resistance. Sheikh Abdullah and the National Conference mobilized thousands of volunteers to assist the Indian Army and maintain communal harmony. The ensuing conflict, the First Indo-Pakistani War (1947–48), saw Indian forces gradually pushing the invaders back. However, the conflict reached a stalemate, and on the advice of Lord Mountbatten, Prime Minister Nehru referred the matter to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in January 1948.   

The UN Resolution 47, passed on April 21, 1948, called for a ceasefire and a three-step process to determine the future of the state through a plebiscite. The steps were:   

1. Pakistan must withdraw all its troops and tribal invaders from the territory it had occupied.   
2. India must then reduce its military presence to the minimum required for law and order.   
3. A free and impartial plebiscite would be conducted.   

Because Pakistan never fulfilled the first condition—refusing to withdraw from the areas now known as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Gilgit-Baltistan—the conditions for a plebiscite were never met. Consequently, the legal accession of October 1947 remained the bedrock of India’s sovereignty over the entire state.   

Leadership Dynamics: Nehru, Patel, and the National Conference

The integration of Jammu and Kashmir was not just a legal process but a clash of political visions among India’s top leadership. Jawaharlal Nehru, whose roots were in the Kashmir valley, had an emotional and idealistic commitment to the region. He believed that the secular identity of Kashmir, as represented by Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference, was the ultimate refutation of the Two-Nation Theory. Nehru’s insistence on a “reference to the people” and his decision to involve the UN are often viewed as manifestations of this idealism.   

In contrast, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Deputy Prime Minister and ‘Iron Man of India’, was a pragmatist. While some historians suggest that Patel was initially prepared to let J&K go to Pakistan if it meant securing Junagadh and Hyderabad, he became a resolute advocate for total integration once the tribal invasion occurred. Patel was reportedly critical of the delay in military action and favored a more decisive, state-led approach rather than international diplomacy. Despite these differences, recent historical analyses emphasize that Nehru and Patel worked in a partnership of mutual respect, with Patel handling the integration of most states while deferring to Nehru on Kashmir due to the latter’s deep personal engagement.   

Sheikh Abdullah, the “Lion of Kashmir” (Sher-e-Kashmir), was the third crucial pillar. His National Conference had transitioned from the “Muslim Conference” in 1939 to embrace a secular, inclusive ideology influenced by Nehru and Gandhi. Abdullah’s ‘Naya Kashmir’ manifesto envisioned a progressive society based on land reforms and universal education. His support for the accession was vital, as it gave the legal document a popular, democratic backing from the state’s majority community.   

Constitutional Evolution: The Era of Article 370 and 35A

The unique circumstances of J&K’s accession necessitated a special constitutional arrangement. Article 370 was incorporated into Part XXI of the Indian Constitution in 1949 as a “temporary, transitional, and special provision”. Drafted by N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, it granted J&K a high degree of autonomy, allowing it to have its own Constitution and a separate state flag.   

Under Article 370:

• The Indian Parliament could only make laws for J&K on the subjects specified in the Instrument of Accession (Defence, External Affairs, Communications).   
• For any other central laws to apply, the concurrence of the State Government was required.   
• The President could, by notification, declare Article 370 inoperative, but only with the recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly.   

In 1952, the Delhi Agreement between Nehru and Abdullah further defined this relationship, leading to the abolition of the monarchy and the introduction of an elected head of state, the Sadr-e-Riyasat. Following this, the 1954 Presidential Order introduced Article 35A, which empowered the J&K Legislature to define “permanent residents” and grant them exclusive rights to own land, get government jobs, and receive state-funded scholarships. While intended to protect the local demographic and cultural identity, Article 35A was later criticized for being discriminatory against women and non-resident Indian citizens.   

The 2019 Reorganization: A New Constitutional Paradigm

The landscape of Jammu and Kashmir changed dramatically on August 5, 2019. The Government of India, through a Presidential Order (C.O. 272), superseded the 1954 Order and made all provisions of the Indian Constitution applicable to J&K. This effectively neutralized the special status of the state. To fulfill the requirement of “concurrence” from the state in the absence of an active Legislative Assembly (the state was under President’s Rule), the government used Article 367 to interpret references to the “Constituent Assembly” as the “Legislative Assembly of the State”.   

Simultaneously, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 was passed, which bifurcated the state into two Union Territories (UTs):

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir: A UT with a Legislative Assembly (similar to Delhi and Puducherry).   
2. Union Territory of Ladakh: A UT without a legislature, comprising the districts of Leh and Kargil.   

The act also abolished the J&K Legislative Council and extended 106 central laws—including the Indian Penal Code, the Right to Information Act, and the Right to Education Act—to the region. This move was presented as a means to ensure socio-economic development, eliminate discrimination, and integrate the region fully into India’s growth story.   

Comparative Structure of the Union Territories (Post-2019)

The Supreme Court Verdict of 2023: Judicial Confirmation

The 2019 abrogation of Article 370 was challenged in the Supreme Court of India. On December 11, 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered a landmark unanimous judgment. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the abrogation and the reorganization, establishing several key principles:   

• No Internal Sovereignty: The court ruled that Jammu and Kashmir did not retain any element of sovereignty after its accession to India. The special status under Article 370 was a feature of “asymmetric federalism,” not an indicator of separate sovereignty.   
• Temporary Character of 370: The court affirmed that Article 370 was always a temporary provision, designed for a specific historical context of war and internal strife.   
• Presidential Powers: The President had the power to issue notifications to make Article 370 inoperative without the consent of the (dissolved) Constituent Assembly.   
• Restoration of Statehood: While upholding the UT status as a temporary measure, the court directed the central government to restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir as soon as possible and mandated that assembly elections be held by September 30, 2024.   

Delimitation and the Return of Democracy (2022–2024)

Following the 2019 Act, a Delimitation Commission was established in 2020, headed by Justice (Retd.) Ranjana Prakash Desai, to redraw the electoral boundaries of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir based on the 2011 Census. The final report, submitted in May 2022, brought significant changes to the electoral map:   

• Total Seats: The number of Assembly seats was increased from 83 to 90 (excluding the 24 seats reserved for PoK).   
• Regional Distribution: Six additional seats were allocated to the Jammu region (taking its total from 37 to 43) and one additional seat to the Kashmir valley (taking its total from 46 to 47).   
• Reservations: For the first time, 9 seats were reserved for Scheduled Tribes (STs). Additionally, 7 seats were reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs).   
• Nominated Members: The commission recommended nominating at least two members from the Kashmiri migrant community (Pandits) and one from the displaced persons of PoK to the Legislative Assembly.   

This exercise paved the way for the return of popular rule. Between September 18 and October 1, 2024, Jammu and Kashmir held its first Assembly elections in ten years. The election saw a significant turnout of 64.28%, signaling a renewed faith in democratic institutions.   

2024 Assembly Election: A Deep Dive into the Results

The election results, announced on October 8, 2024, led to a decisive victory for the alliance between the National Conference and the Indian National Congress. This result restored a local government to the valley for the first time since the imposition of Governor’s rule in 2018.   

Omar Abdullah was sworn in as the first Chief Minister of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir on October 16, 2024. His government’s primary challenge remains the restoration of statehood, economic development, and navigating the administrative complexities of a UT legislature where “Police” and “Public Order” remain under central control.   

Conclusion: The Path Ahead for the Region

The journey of Jammu and Kashmir from the ancient chronicles of Kalhana to the 2024 elections reflects the resilience and complexity of the Indian state. The accession of 1947 remains the singular, irreversible legal foundation of the region’s relationship with India. While the constitutional experiments of the mid-20th century provided a unique framework of autonomy, the legislative and judicial developments of 2019–2023 have reset the trajectory toward full, uniform integration.

For aspirants, the J&K issue is a classic study in constitutional law, history, and international relations. The focus has now shifted from debates over “special status” to the mechanics of “asymmetric federalism” and the restoration of democratic statehood. As the region integrates further into the national economic fabric, the success of the new governance model will depend on balancing security needs with the democratic aspirations of a diverse population, ensuring that the integration is not just legal and territorial, but also emotional and socio-economic.

About The Author

Sahil Digra

See author's posts