But did the 1935 Act even apply, since British paramountcy no longer applied - theoretically then there were no 'rules' governing the accession of the State of Kashmir. 'His majesty' was not accepting the instrument of accession in the case of J&K, the Governor General of India was.
Yes, India Act, 1935 was applicable to the extent permitted by Indian Independence Act, 1947. According to Section 8(2) of Indian Independence Act, 1947:
‘Except in so far as other provision is made by or in accordance with a law made by the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion under subsection (i) of this section, each of the new Dominions and all Provinces and other parts thereof shall be governed as nearly as may be in accordance with the Government of India Act, 1935……’
Indian Independence Act, 1947 dealt with some very specific issues, primary among which were the partition of the provinces of Bengal, Assam and Punjab, the legality of outstanding agreements, standstill agreements etc. Accordingly, necessary amendments were also made in India Act, 1935.
But if we are to leave that gray area and go with 'policy', then quite clearly 'policy and promises' of plebiscite, as clearly indicated by the Governor General of India's comments (and also those of the Prime Minister of India, Nehru) were violated by India.
This time around I will quote the same comments of Mountbatten that you have quoted earlier, highlighting a different part, and leave it without a comment.
In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently with their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the States accession should be settled by a reference to the people.
That is a unilateral determination on the part of India, similar to its intervention decades later in East Pakistan - stoking rebellion and destabilizing a territory and then using the weakest of pretexts and no real engagement with the nation exercising sovereignty over the territory to wage war, invade and occupy said territories.
Victoria Shofiled commented, in her book
'Kashmir In Conflict', that Jinnah was ‘shocked’ to learn that PA was completely incapable of reaching Junagadh, let alone secure law and order. The dewan of Junagadh, was in constant touch with Pakistan and every single move he made, including his occasional farts and belches, was on the direction of Pakistan. When the law and order situation got completely out of hand, Pakistan agreed, although grudgingly, through the dewan, for Indian intervention.
No matter how hard you try it still wasn't an 'invasion'.
Did India gain sanction from the UN or any other international body to legitimize its military actions against the sovereign State of Pakistan under the pretext of 'crises'? No it did not, therefore Indian actions in Junagadh have no legitimacy and no legality and the State was illegally invaded and occupied.
India didn’t need one. The dewan, on behalf of Pakistan, had asked for help. That was enough.
An image of the IoA is in the public domain - I was referring to the original document itself being vetted for authenticity.
To the best of my understanding, except for Alastair Lamb, who, I must admit, has done a phenomenal job at making a molehill out of a molehill, no body, who matters, has questioned the authenticity of the document.
Yet the State of Pakistan accepted the UNSC resolutions calling for plebiscite in the case of J&K, as did the State of India, which as you and I have both pointed out, looked to 'plebiscite' in determining final status and accession as a matter of policy, and yet it was the Indian State that chose to unilaterally violate its commitments internationally and on a bilateral level with the people of Kashmir.
Yes, Pakistan accepted the plebiscite in Kashmir, in October, 1948, a full one year after the fiasco, only after biting off a large chunk of it and consolidating its position in Kashmir thus ensuring that plebiscite would never ever be held in Kashmir. If Pakistan’s true intention was to solve Kashmir in any way, Jinnah would have accepted Mountbatten’s offer of plebiscite on 1st Nov, 1947.