Nehru and Abdullah shared same vision for J&K

As far back as 1939, in his presidential address at the Ludhiana session of the Congress, Nehru had spoken extensively about the treaty of rights of princes. Nehru, who always stood for the idea and ideal of India, was opposed to the very concept of autocracy and shared Sheikh Abdullah's vision of freedom and democracy for Kashmir instead of the clutches of perennial serfdom. In many ways, he was throwing down the gauntlet against imperialism by drawing a line on the princelings which represented autocracy in the country.

Facts

His speech in Ludhiana bears repetition, "We are told now that the so-called independence of the states and of their treaties with paramount power which are sacrosanct and inviolable and apparently must go for ever and ever. (Hinting at the origin of World War II) We have recently seen what happens to international treaties and the most sacred of covenants when they don't suit the purpose of imperialism. We have seen these treaties torn up, friends and allies basely deserted and betrayed and the pledged words broken by England and France."

With Nehru in a militant mood, opposed to keeping chains of slavery, imposed on them by fraud and force and to submit to a system which crushes the lifeblood out of them, it was clear that he would not recognise any such treaty. As a true believer in democracy, he was of the opinion that the will of the people was the only paramount power worth recognising. This emerged strongly at the Udaipur session of the All India States People's Conference six years later, where he argued that the princelings were mere mirror images of British imperialists.

Men who shaped modern India's destiny like Nehru and Sardar Patel's thinking was predicated on the legality of paramountcy and was governed by some unalterable facts: 

• After the unsuccessful revolution of 1857, the paramountcy of the East India Company was transferred to the Crown of England. By the Act of 1858, the Queen of England assumed the title of Empress of India including the states. The consent of the Indian states to such a transfer as also that of the people of the provinces was taken to be implied in the instrument of transfer. 
• Till the enactment of the Act of 1935, the relations between the states and the British government were carried on by the governor general in Council; and the states in the various agencies were under their respective provincial governors.
• The states owe allegiance and subordinate cooperation to the British Crown not in its individual or personal capacity; but to the Emperor of India in his political capacity. 
• The relations of the states were therefore with the King Emperor of India and not the King of England. 
• Having succeeded to the Company, the Crown of England as the sovereign of India as a whole was also the legal entity which functioned as the paramount power in respect to the states.
• Thus, on assuming supremacy over India, the Crown immediately and automatically became the sovereign of states which were and always parts of India. 
• Now comes the clincher, there is nothing to prevent the British Parliament from transferring its paramountcy over the whole of India, by statute, to ministers responsible to an Indian legislature.

Arrangement

Now this wasn't mere wordplay, it went way beyond rhetoric. New India's new paradigm was being charted carefully. This was the way forward that the Congress leadership under Nehru and Patel was prognosticating:

• Abolition of smaller states in terms of the Udaipur resolutions of the All India States People's Conference. 
• The states thus affected may either be merged in the surrounding provinces or amalgamated among themselves, with a view to form suitably big units for purpose of administration and federation. 
• When enforcing this decision, due regard shall be paid to the wishes of the people thus affected and to the cultural and linguistic contiguity of these states either with each other or with surrounding provinces. 
• Suitable arrangement will also be made for the maintenance of the princes thus affected and they may be given ample opportunities to prove useful to society.

Tough Task

The task at hand was gargantuan. Partition had only partly been foreseen. The great migrations that took place from both sides have been recorded by history. The role of the chamber of princes numbering over 560, their Machiavellian games and their amalgamation into the two dominions was the biggest challenge given the structure presented by the British for freedom. As such for the bigger states, which were around 12, a separate set of demands was kept aside. Stratagems to emasculate them had to be devised, in the main, the big twelve: 

• Annul the so-called treaties and such other arrangements, between the British and the princes. 
• Transfer of powers of the British paramountcy to the central federal authority of the nation, and abolish the system of separate relationship with the princes. 
• The princes to have no direct relations with the Crown or its representative in India; and all the powers and authority possessed and inherent in the Crown with respect to the states to be immediately transferred to the sovereign people of India or their duly elected central government.
• States to be units in the federal scheme with position and status similar to that enjoyed by other units. 
• Abolish the imperial service troops and state forces and substitute them by arrangements provided in the other units for the maintenance of law and order.
• All cases of accession or like disputes to be settled by the federal authority in accordance with the wishes of the people of the states concerned.

Sheikh Abdullah, in a telegram to the British Cabinet Mission, wrote telling words which reflected his nationalism, "As the mission is reviewing the relationship of the princes with the paramount power with reference to treaty rights, we wish to submit that for us in Kashmir, re-examination of this relationship is a vital matter because 100 years ago in 1846, the land and people of Kashmir were sold for 75 lakh of Sikh rupees. The governor of Kashmir resisted transfer but was finally reduced to subjugation with the aid of the British. Thus the sale deed of 1846 misnamed Treaty of Amritsar, sealed the fate of Kashmiris. We declare that this sale deed confers no privileges equivalent to those claimed by the states governed by treaty rights. As such, the case of Kashmir stands on unique footing." By contesting the treaty itself, Abdullah had declared war on maharaja and the British and that became the bulwark of Kashmir's accession to India.