Sunday, January 23, 2022 1:18:50 AM

Difference between 22 and 27 October? Dr Shabir Choudhry

News Desk
Tuesday, October 24, 2017



22 October 2017

It is sad that under the propaganda and distorted history taught to citizens of Jammu and Kashmir, some of us are still greatly influenced by narratives of our occupiers. This confusion is further aggravated by their foot soldiers and ‘face book’ scholars.


Crown Representative Lord Mountbatten in his Address to a Special Full Meeting of the Chamber of Princes on 25 July 1947said:


‘Now, the Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom- technically and legally they become independent.’ 1


Also, on the status of the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah asserted on 7 June 1947:


“Constitutionally and legally, the Indian States will be independent sovereign states on the termination of Paramountcy and they will be free to decide for themselves to adopt any course they like. It is open to them to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly, the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, or decide to remain independent. In the last case, they enter into such arrangements or relationship with Hindustan or Pakistan as they may choose.” 2


Mohammed Ali Jinnah demonstrated with his action that the Two Nations Theory flawed as it was, did not apply to the Princely States. The State of Junagarh had around 80% non - Muslim majority with a Muslim Ruler. If the Two Nations Theory was applicable to the Princely States then this Princely State should have automatically become part of India. But because the Two Nations Theory was not applicable to the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah as a Governor General of Pakistan accepted its accession to Pakistan.


Despite these clear facts some people try to confuse the issue by saying that Jammu and Kashmir belongs to Pakistan because of the Two Nations Theory.

There are other historical facts, which people try to confuse. After lapse of the British Paramountcy, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became independent on 15 August 1947.


The Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, RC Kak, sent two telegrams to India and Pakistan with the same text, which reads and I quote:

“Standstill Agreement”

“Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill Agreement with Union of India/Pakistan on all matters on which there exists arrangements with the outgoing British India Government.”


The Government of Pakistan happily accepted the Standstill Agreement and replied back on 15 August 1947, which reads:


“The Government of Pakistan agrees to have Standstill Agreement with Jammu and Kashmir for the continuation of existing arrangements …”.


Some people wrongly propagate that the Government of India rejected the Standstill Agreement. This is not true. In reply to Prime Minister Kak’s telegram, the Government of India wrote back in the following words:


“Government of India would be glad if you or some other Minister duly authorised in this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between Kashmir Government and India dominion. Early action desirable to maintain intact existing agreements and administrative arrangements.”


Furthermore, some people spend extra time to distort history and confuse the issues by saying that both armies entered Jammu and Kashmir as aggressors. This is also not true. An important distinction has to be made between the armies:


1.   Pakistani troops in civilian clothes and Tribesmen entered Jammu and Kashmir by violating the Standstill Agreement;


2.   They came to Kashmir against the wishes of the Maharaja;


3.   They came there with intention of invading the State and teaching the Ruler a lesson;

4.   The Jihad warriors were told they had a licence to kill, loot and plunder, and rape and kidnap women.

The Indian army on the other hand came to Jammu and Kashmir:


·      On the request of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir;

·      They came there after a treaty – Provisional accession;

·      They came there to protect life, liberty and property of the people;

·      They came there to drive out the invaders and protect integrity of Jammu and Kashmir. 3

It is sad that role of the Indian troops changed with time; and they failed to honour obligations they assumed under the Provisional Agreement and under the UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir.


It is a bitter fact that troops of India, which came to save life, liberty and honour of people of Jammu and Kashmir, now have their hands red with the blood of the innocent Kashmiri people. They are responsible for committing human rights abuses. However, Pakistan gets the distinction to be the first country which attacked Jammu and Kashmir, killed innocent people, raped women and kidnaped them and then sold them in Pakistani cities.


Some people are very eager to drag India in everything; and condemn India. They are also very enthusiastic to hold demonstrations against India. I am not against holding demonstrations against India. Nevertheless, I am against holding demonstration on 27 October and 15 August.


In my considered opinion, 27 October cannot be a Black Day, because Indian troops came in Jammu and Kashmir on this date on the request of the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir; and after a treaty known as Provisional accession.


Also, 15 August cannot be a Black Day for two reasons. The British Raj ended on 15 August 1947, and with that Jammu and Kashmir also became independent. It is not prudent to call that day a Black Day and to hold demonstrations. Critics can say we are holding demonstrations against our own independent day.


Furthermore, it is not sensible to hold a Black Day demonstration when people are celebrating their Independence Day. We need to win support of Indian and Pakistani civil society; and by holding demonstrations on their Independence Day we will only hurt their sentiments and turn them against us.


In addition, if we only hold demonstrations on the Independence Day of India and wave Pakistani flags or remain quiet on 14 August, which is Pakistan’s Independence Day, we are giving this message to the world community that we are advancing the agenda of Pakistan.


Apart from these dates, if you want to hold a demonstration against India on the issue of human rights abuses, I am with you. I will be out there with you protesting outside the Indian High Commission; but I cannot be a party to advance the agenda of GHQ.



1.    H S Guru Raj Rao, Legal Aspects of the Kashmir problem, Page 190

2.    In a reply to a question about legal status of the Princely States, Mohammed Ali Jinnah clarified Muslim League’s viewpoint on 17 June 1947.

3.    Some Clarifications regarding Kashmir dispute.