Kashmir: Did the "Article of Accession" ever exist?

Posted on 07 December 2007. Tags: Article of Accession, Azad Kashmir, History

According to the Indians the original “Article of of Accession” is lost–as if it ever existed. There are serious issues of timing and dates pointed out by various international, Pakistani and Indian authors–The works of Stanley Wolpert and Alistair Lamb stand out in this matter.

India’s False Claim on Kashmir On October 28th 1993, Robin Raphel stated that Washington did not recognise the Instrument of Accession to India as meaning that Kashmir is not forever more an integral part of India. She expressed the view that the whole of Kashmir is disputed territory, the future status of which must be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir.

Kashmir article of accession was never presented to Pakistan or the UN. It has now been lost, if it ever existed. Even the forged copy has problems with dates The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva, recently, passed a resolution proclaiming Kashmir’s accession to India as bogus and null and void. The ICJ went further by condemning the human rights violations in Kashmir.

These events serve to highlight the disputed status of Kashmir by focusing on the fraudulent nature of the Instrument of Accession which was ‘signed’ by the Mahrajah of Kashmir on 26th October 1947. India now claims that the article of accession is now lost–as if it ever existed. The fake article of Accession. There is over writing on this, and the date is wrong. Gilgit Baltistan were independent and never part of Kashmir

India now claims that the article of accession is now lost--as if it ever existed. The fake article of Accession. There is over writing on this, and the date is wrong. Gilgit Baltistan were independent and never part of Kashmir

The Indians claim that the Instrument of Accession was signed by Mahrajah Hari Singh on 26th October 1947, in which the Mahrajah agreed to accede to India in return for military assistance to put down the popular rebellion against him, seen at that time as an invasion by tribesmen from neighbouring Pakistan.

The details of the accession were worked out between the Kashmiri Prime Minister, MC Mahajan and the Indian official, VP Menon, in Dehli. However, there are serious doubts about the signing of the document. Alastair Lamb (in his book, Kashmir – A disputed legacy 1846-1990) points out that the Instrument of Accession could not have been signed by the Mahrajah on 26th October as he was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 Km).

There is no evidence to suggest that a meeting or communication of any kind took place on 26th October 1947. In fact it was on 27th October 1947 that the Mahrajah was informed by his MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar), the the Instrument of Accession had already been negotiated in Dehli. The Mahrajah did not in fact sign the Instrument of Accession, if at all, until 27th October 1947. This sheds doubts on the actions of the Indian regime. Some Indian troops had already arrived and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947. On 26th October 1947, a further massive airlift brought thousands of Indian troops to Kashmir – BEFORE the signing of the Accession.

Therefore, this situation begs the question: would the Mahrajah have signed the Instrument of Accession had the Indian troops not been on Kashmiri soil? No satisfactory original of the Instrument of Accession has ever been produced in an international forum; a published form has always been shown. Further, the document was not presented to Pakistan or to the UN. In the summer of 1995, the Indian authorities reported the original document as lost or stolen. This sheds further doubt on whether the Mahrajah actually signed the Instrument of Accession.

The Governor-General of India at the time, Lord Mountbatten, stipulated that the permanent accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union will only be accepted once the people of Kashmir had been consulted. He noted in a letter to the Mahrajah, “the question of the states’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people”. Furthermore, when the Kashmir crisis broke out in October 1947, the principle of reference to the people through plebiscite was already established as similar disputes in some other states had been resolved this way.

The Indian Prime Minister J Nehru, accepted this principle and reiterated his position in a letter to the British Prime Minister on 25th October 1947, “our view, which we have repeatedly made public, is that the question of accession in any disputed territory must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people and we adhere to this view”. Therefore, at the time of the so-called accession, the Indian regime accepted the principle of reference to the people. Based on this principle, the Instrument of Accession should have been provisional and conditional upon the outcome of a plebiscite. When India took the Kashmir issue to the UN in 1948, it did so under article 35 of Chapter VI which outlines the means for a peaceful settlement of disputes. It is interesting to note here that India did not present the Kashmir case under the UN Chapter VII which relates to acts of aggression as India was alleging Pakistan.

Therefore, it is evident that by raising the issue under Chapter VI, India recognised the Kashmir issue as a dispute, thus conceding that the Instrument of Accession had not confirmed the state to be an integral part of India. India is still party to all the UN resolutions on Kashmir. Moreover, India and Pakistan accepted the UN resolutions of January 1948 calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir to exercise the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. India’s acceptance of the UN resolutions establishes beyond a doubt, that the future of status of Kashmir would be determined by its people. Therefore, the Instrument of Accession, even if genuine, is rendered null and void. In the past, attempts to hold a plebiscite have been met with fierce opposition from India.

India has known, right from the start, that the result of a plebiscite is a foregone conclusion – the population of Kashmir would have voted to rid themselves of Indian rule. This has been the case from 26th October 1947 to the present day. On the practicality of holding a plebiscite, a paper by the US state department, presented to the UN on 2nd December 1947, noted , “the dominion of India may attempt to establish the extant electoral rolls on the basis for the referendum. As these rolls are said to contain less than 7% of the population and were compiled on a basis which served the weight to the members of the wealthiest educated Hindu majority who would obviously vote for accession to India, it is important that the electoral body should in fact be composed on a basis of complete adult suffrage in order that the result of the referendum may be representative of the actual wishes of the people of Kashmir”. In view of the above arguments, it is clear that the Indian case on Kashmir is politically, legally and morally unjustified. The commitment made by India and the UN to allow the people of the state to choose their own future are neither time bound nor do they provide an escape clause for the Indian regime. It is only through fraud and repression that India continues to forcefully occupy a large portion of Kashmir. This site is maintained by Gharib Hanif (hanif@gharib.demon.co.uk). Comments and suggestions always welcome.

| PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ????? | December 7th, 2007 | Moin Ansari | ???? ??????? | | RUPEE NEWS | Moin Ansari | December 7th, 2007 | ???? ??????? | ????? ????? | ?? ????? ???? India is supposed to have an article of accession from Kashmir. Neither the UN nor Pakistan was ever presented with the documetn. There is a charge that Lord Radcliff was given a bribe of 6 corore rupees by the Indian National Congress supporters to unfairly/”illegally” award Ferozepur and Gurdaspur to India. Ferozepur was the only arsenal that was supposed to be given to Pakistan. Gurdaspur was a Muslim majority area and was awarded to India.

The boundary line was along the river and Radcliff unnaturally digressed it away from the river to give away Gurdaspur (the only link of India to Kashmir) to India. The implication of the loss of Ferozepur to India was not only traumatic in human terms, but it was devastating to Pakistan in military terms. The reality behind the conspiracy to award Gurdaspur became evident a year later when Indian troops arrived in Srinagar and then Hari Sing signed over the article of accession to India. The article of accession was never presented to the UN, and according to Alister Lamb has serious discrepancies about dates. The original article of accession has since been lost, if it ever existed.

“Alastair Lamb, ‘Incomplete Partition’ (OUP, 1998) comes to the conclusion that the instrument of accession was not signed on the date claimed by the Indian government to legitimise its sending of troops into Kashmir. American scholar Stanley Wolpert relates the accession story in his 1996 book, ‘Nehru: A tryst with Destiny’, basing it on the lack of concordance between versions of the accession.

Wolpert writes that Menon returned from Srinagar on 26 October ‘with no Instrument of Accession’ to report on the perilous condition in Kashmir to the Defence Committee. Only after Mountbatten had allowed the airlift of Indian troops on 27 October, did Menon and Mahajan set out for Jammu ‘to get the Instrument of Accession’. The Maharaja signed the Instrument after the Indian troops had assumed control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir’s summer capital, Srinagar.

If Wolpert’s version is accepted then the ‘conspiracy’ of legalising the airlift becomes acceptable. Lamb thinks that it is possible that ‘certainly Menon, perhaps Mountbatten, perhaps Nehru and perhaps Patel’ were involved in this conspiracy. Lamb also claims that the document of accession does not exist.”

The world has not seen the original. So it does not exist!

Maps showing Azad Kashmir

Maps showing Northern areas and Karakoram Highway route

According to Alister Lamb a noted historian of Kashmir, the actions of India have cast several doubts on the article of accession. The events as noted by several Indian historians do not make sense. Recently both the timing of the event as well as the intentions of the Indian National Congress have come under close scrutiny. India’s claim to accession is in dispute. The U.N. recognized the dispute, and treats Kashmir as disputed territory between India and Pakistan.

NORTHERN AREAS WERE INDEPENDENT AND NEVER PART OF KASHMIR

According to Alister Lamb, the Northern Areas rose up in revolt against the Dogra rule before the annexation that supposedly was signed between the Dogras and India. This makes them independent of the rest of Kashmir and the accession document does not apply to them. The article of accession was never given to Pakistan or the United Nations. India now claims that the “article of accession” is lost if it ever existed. There are several errors in the published version of the article of accession. The dates do not match and show that the Indian forces had moved into Srinagar before the article had been “signed”.

Here is an excerpt from Alastair Lamb’s book Kashmir… A Disputed Legacy. (Capitalization emphasis is mine)

MAHAJAN’S NARRATIVE ALSO CONTAINS THE FASCINATING SUGGESTION THAT THE FIRST INDIAN TROOPS WERE LANDING AT SRINAGAR AIRFIELD BEFORE THE PROCESS OF ACCESSION HAD BEEN COMPLETED.

If so, then the intervention of the Indian Army in the Kashmir dispute could well be another of those episodes, of which Pearl Harbour is the supreme example, where the military course of events resulted in the opening act of war taking place before the politicians and diplomats were able to organize its formal legitimisation.

Even more intriguing, in this context, is the fact that Indian troops arriving at Srinagar airport on 27 Oct. 1947 found other Indian troops, in the shape of Patiala men, already established there and elsewhere in the State.

The Patiala forces had arrived, it seems, on about 17 Oct. 1947, that is to say before the tribal crossing of the bridge at Domel on 22 Oct.

These two questions, the timing of the precise moment of accession and the date of the arrival of the Patiala men, have for some reason not been touched upon by the Pakistani side in the Kashmir debate over all these years; and, not surprisingly, the Indian side has not gone out of its way to draw attention to the matter.

The chronology and interpretation of the events leading up to accession which have been set out in Chapter 7 above lead to a number of conclusions which certainly differ from the received opinion, at least as interpreted by Indian diplomats. We will confine ourselves here to two issues, the status of Azad Kashmir and the question of who were the “aggressors” in those crucial days from 21 to 27 Oct. 1947.

On 15 Aug. 1947 the State of Jammu and Kashmir became to all intents and purposes an independent state.

There is no other possible interpretation of the lapse of Paramountcy. On 24 Oct. 1947 the independence of the State of Azad Kashmir was declared, relating to the territory mainly in the old Poonch jagir in which the control of the Maharaja, apart from Poonch city itself, had completely disappeared. Azad Kashmir’s first president, Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim Khan, as an elected member of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly for a constituency in Poonch, could certainly be said to enjoy some measure of popular mandate, as least as much as the later claimed for Sheikh Abdullah.

On 26 or 27 Oct. 1947 the Maharaja formally acceded to India. Did he bring, even in theory, Azad Kashmir with him? This is certainly an interesting question which ought to occupy the minds of international lawyers.

Map of Occupied Kashmir

Ladakh has a Muslim majority map. Kashmir valley map

All areas of Kashmir

This is the paper that supposedly exists. It was never presented to Pakistan and never presented to the United Nations. This paper does not stand the scrutiny of historian. The “original date” of this so called paper was listed as “August” which casts further doubt on the document.

“Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an Independent Dominion known as India, and that the Government of India Act, 1935 shall, with such omission, additions, adaptations and modifications as the governor-general may by order specify, be applicable to the Dominion of India.

And whereas the Government of India Act 1935, as so adapted by the governor-general, provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof.

Now, therefore, I Shriman Inder Mahander Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu and Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbetadi Deshadhipathi, Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), in the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the governor-general of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall, by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as “this State”) such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August, 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as “the Act”) .” Wikipedia

Pakistan has reacted strongly to the frivolous statements made by the Indian Ministry for External Affairs.The Northern Areas of Pakistan are liberated territory and include Gilgit, Skardu, Dir and other areas which were states that have been absorbed into Pakistan. These states were not part of the Dogra Kashmir and decided to join Pakistan in 1947. Today the Northern Areas (renamed Gilgit Baltistan) have their own provincial assembly.

Northern Areas of Gilgit Baltistan province are part of Pakistan and were never part of Kashmir

In 1935, The British had leased Gilgit and Baltistan for 60 years from the Dogra regime in Jammu and Kashmir
The leased region was then treated as part of British India, administered by a Political Agent at Gilgit responsible to Delhi, first through the Resident in J& K and later a British Agent in Peshawar.
Jammu & Kaskmir State no longer kept troops in Gilgit and a force, the Gilgit Scouts, was recruited with British officers and paid for by Delhi.
On 31 July, 1947 the Governor arrived to find “all the officers of the British Government had opted for service in Pakistan”.
On 4 November 1947, Brown raised the new Pakistani flag in the Scouts’ lines, and by the third week of November a Political Agent from Pakistan had established himself at Gilgit.
Brown had engineered Gilgit and its adjoining states to first secede from J&K, and, after some talk of being independent, had promptly acceded to Pakistan.
In March 1994, Pakistan awarded Brown’s widow the Sitara-I-Pakistan in recognition of his services to Pakistan.

Gilgit: The fourth distinct in the region is Gilgit which is known as Dardistan. The region includes the tributory states of Hunza, Nagar, Chilas, Punial, Ishkuman, Kuh and Ghizar. The people belong to the Dardic race and are closely connected with Chitralis in race, culture and language. They are mostly followers of Ismaili sect headed by the Agha Khan (Muslims). This region was conquered by Maharaja Gulab Singh’s son, Maharaja Ranbir Singh between 1846 and 1860. Thousands of Dogra soldiers lost their lives in the campaigns that led to the conquest of this inhospitable but strategically very important region. The whole Dardistan including Gilgit has been merged with Pakistan and is governed by the Pakistani Central Government. This area has not been included even in the so called “Azad-Kashmir” (literally means Free/Liberated Kashmir. That is what the Pakistanis call the portion of Kashmirunder their occupation).

Northern Areas:Pakistani President General Zia-ul-Haq had declared that these territories which includes the Silk Route that connects Pakistan to China, might have once been part of Jammu and Kashmir, but now they are a part of Pakistan. The Northern areas, which include Dardistan and Baltistan, have already been integrated fully with Pakistan. In a quiet behind the scene announcement the Pakistani Ministry of Kashmiri Affairs and Northern Areas has divided these areas into five civil districts - Gilgit, Skardu, Chilas, Gohkoch and Khalpo. The administration of these districts is under Pakistan’s direct control and now Pakistan’s laws are applicable.

Junagarh and Manavdar are also Pakistani territory.

The Northern areas are NOT part of Kashmir and it was wrong of General Pervez Musharraf to concede that the fate of the Northern Areas was up for grabs. If Kashmir is our “shehrug” then the Northern Areas are our lifeline to China.

Siachen:

Red Lines mark the Pakistani positions on Siacehn

In the 80s the Sichin Glacier was under Pakisani control

Pakistani jawans in Siachin

END OF ARTICLE

Was Pakistan inevitable?

http://moinansari.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/was-pakistan-inevitable-the-inc-made-major-mistakes-before-and-after-1947/

Also on this site: How Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan outmaneuvered Gandhi, Nehru and the INC and Sir Chottu Ram’s Zamindara (renamed Unionist Party). Please click here

http://moinansari.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/how-jinnah-and-liaqat-of-the-pakistan-movement-outmaneuvered-the-fifth-columns/

IS INDIA A FAILED STATE: Also on this site. Please click here

http://moinansari.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/is-india-a-failed-state/

WHY PAKISTAN WAS CREATED?Also on this site. Please click here

Also on this site: Why Pakistan was created?

http://moinansari.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/why-we-created-pakistan-the-pakistan-ideology/

APPENDIX

INDIA’S COMMITMENT OF PLEBISCITE FOR
http://www.na.gov.pk/s_kashmir_india_comitment.html

THE PEOPLE OF KASHMIR

“Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view.”· JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(in telegram No. 402-Primin-2227 dated 27 October 1947 to Prime Minister of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to Prime Minister of United Kingdom).
“In regard to accession also, it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision.” · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (in telegram No.413 dated 28 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).
“ …….the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion then.” · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (in telegram No.255 dated 31 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).
“Kashmir should decide question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of the United Nations.” · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Letter No. 368-Primin dated 21 November 1947 to Prime Minister of Pakistan).
“We are anxious not to finalize anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide.
“And let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state.” · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(Broadcast to the Nation: “All India Radio”: 2 November 1947). “The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.” · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Statement in Indian Constituent Assembly; 25 November 1947).
“We have not opposed at any time an over-all plebiscite for the State as a whole…….” · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(in telegram dated 16 August 1950 addressed to the U.N. Representative for India and Pakistan: S/1791 : Anne 1(B).
“The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by fair and impartial plebiscite.”
· JAWAHARLAL NEHRU (Joint press communique of the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan issued in Delhi after their meeting on 20 August 1953).
“People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future.” · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Report to the All-India Congress Committee, 6 July 1951; The Statesman, New Delhi, 9 July 1951).
“Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir.” · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 31 March 1955).
“We had given our pledge to the people of Kashmir, and subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today. Let the people of Kashmir decide.” · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 12 February 1951).
“We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”, · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, 2 January 1952).
“If, after a proper plebiscite, the people of Kashmir said, ‘We do not want to be with India’, we are committed to accept that. We will accept it though it might pain us. We will not send any army against them. We will accept that, however hurt we might feel about it, we will change the Constitution, if necessary.”, · JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, (Statement in the Indian Parliament, 26 June 1952).
“I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir; it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but every where.
“I started with the presumption that it is for the people of Kashmir to decide their own future. We will not compel them. In that sense, the people of Kashmir are sovereign.”
· JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(Statement in Indian Parliament, 7 August 1952)
“The whole dispute about Kashmir is still before the United Nations. We cannot just decide things concerning Kashmir. We cannot pass a bill or issue an order concerning Kashmir or do whatever we want.
· JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(The Statesman, 1 May 1953)
“Leave the decision regarding the future of this State to the people of the State is not merely a promise to your Government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.”
· JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(In telegram No. 25 dated 31 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).
“In regard to accession also it has been made clear that this is subject to reference to people of State and their decision.”
· JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(In telegram No.413 dated 28 October 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).
“That Government of India and Pakistan should make a joint request to U.N.O. to undertake a plebiscite in Kashmir at the earliest possible date.”
· JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(In telegram No. Primin-304 dated 8 November 1947 addressed to Prime Minister of Pakistan).
“We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite………..”
“Ultimately, the final decision of settlement, which must come, has first of all to be made basically by the people of Kashmir…….”
· JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(Statement at Press Conference in London, 16 January 1951, The Statesman, 18 January 1951).
“But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance and international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands.”
· JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
(Statement in the Indian Council of States; 18 May 1954).

http://www.na.gov.pk/s_kashmir_india_comitment.html

Kashmir in the United Nations

Resolution 38 (194 adopted by the Security Council at its 229th Meeting held on 17 January 1948
Resolution 39 (194 adopted by the Security Council at its 230th Meeting held on 20 January 1948
Draft Resolution presented by the President of the Security Council and the Rapporteur on 6 February 1948
Resolution 47 (194 adopted by the Security Council at its 286th Meeting held on 21 April 1948
Resolution 51 (194 adopted by the Security Council at its 312th Meeting held on 3 June 1948
Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948
Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 5 January 1949
Proposal in respect of Jammu and Kashmir made by General A.G.L. McNaughton, President of the Security Council of the United Nations on 22 December 1949
Resolution 80 (1950) adopted by the Security Council at its 470th Meeting held on 14 March 1950
Resolution 91 (1951) adopted by the Security Council at its 539th Meeting held on 30 March 1951
Resolution 96 (1951) adopted by the Security Council al its 566th Meeting held on 10 November 1951
Resolution 98 (1952) adopted by the Security Council at its 611th Meeting held on 23 December 1952
Resolution 122 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 765th Meeting held on 24 January 1957
Draft Resolution presented by Australia, Cuba, U.K. and U.S.A. on 14 February 1957
Resolution 123 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 774th Meeting held on 21 February 1957
Draft Resolution presented by Australia, Columbia,Philippines on 16 November 1957
Resolution 126 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 808th Meeting held on 2 December 1957
Draft Resolution submitted by Ireland to the Security Council on June 22, 1962
Statement of the President of the Security Council (French Representative) made on the 18 May 1964 at the 1117th Meeting of the Council (Document No. S/PV. 1117, dated the 18 May l964) summarizing the conclusion of the debate on Kashmir
Resolution 209 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1237th Meeting held on 4 September 1965
Resolution 210 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1238th Meeting held on 6 September 1965
Resolution 211 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1242nd Meeting held on 20 September 1965
Resolution 214 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1245th Meeting held on 27 September 1965
Resolution 215 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its1251st Meeting held on 5 November 1965
Resolution 303 (1971) adopted by the Security Council at its1606th Meeting held on 6 December 1971
Question considered by the Security Council at its 1606th, 1607th and 1608th Meetings held on 4,5 and 6 December 1971
Resolution 307 (1971) adopted by the Security Council at its 1616th Meeting held on 21 December 1971