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:
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:
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:
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.