The fact that the act was performed by a feudal ruler who had fled his capital in the face of popular revolt is well established in the official record of the dispute. But the facts of the elaborate conspiracy are no so well known but they are being exposed by the painstaking historical research conducted by such unimpeachable authorities as the Oxford historian, Alistair Lamb. The details would need a lengthy narration. Let the following facts, all beyond contradiction, therefore suffice:

1. For months prior to the so-called accession, the Maharaja (the feudal despot) was in contact not only with the Indian leaders but also with other Maharajas who had brought about the mass killings and exodus of their Muslim subjects and acceded to India. Ten weeks earlier, he had dismissed his Kashmiri Pandit Prime Minister who had counselled against a move hostile to Pakistan. The Maharaja had brought in troops and murderous gangs from outside to overawe his Muslim subjects (the majority of the people) and crush any movement for accession to Pakistan.

2. At the moment that he offered to accede to India, his authority over the bulk of the State had crumbled.

3. India flew in its troops to restore his authority even before he had signed and delivered the instrument of accession. His accompanying letter was composed in Delhi.

4. An erstwhile Kashmiri popular leader, Shaikh Muhammad Abdullah, who had become a cohort of Indian leaders, was installed in office for his support of the Maharaja's accession. But this same person, when he insisted that the accession was provisional and depended on a plebiscite, was dismissed and put in jail in 1953. He languished in prison for about thirteen years. It was his followers who mainly formed what was called the Plebiscite Front. (He was reinstated when he was a tired, old man and had given up the fight.)

5. The Constituent Assembly was convened without a poll in Kashmir itself. Seventy-three out of 75 candidates were declared to have been elected unopposed.

6. Before this Assembly was convened, India assured the Security Council that the Assembly would not "come in the way" of the holding of a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations. One representative of India (an eminent jurist. Benegal Rao, later a judge of the International Court of Justice at the Hague) in his formal statement before the Council termed the State's accession to India as "tentative", pending a plebiscite.

7. The Security Council adopted the resolution of 30 March 1951 that any action of the so-called Constituent Assembly "would not constitute a disposition of the State" in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Council's earlier resolutions and accepted by both India and Pakistan - namely the synchronized withdrawal of the forces of both sides preparatory to the plebiscite and the holding of the plebiscite under the control and supervision of the United Nations.

8. When in defiance of the Security Council and in violation of the international argument embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), India in November 1956 nevertheless got the Assembly to declare Kashmir as a part of India, the Security Council adopted the resolution of 24 March 1957, again reminding the parties that "the final disposition of the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations". It also reiterated its earlier declaration that, "any action that the Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle."

If India were as certain of the legal strength of its claim as it professes to be, would it not agree to the whole question being examined by the World Court? A process lasting a few months would vindicate its position and bring it resounding victory. But India knows that an impartial investigation would be fatal to its claim. hence the loud, indignant insistence on "sovereignty". Said an experienced lawyer to his young apprentice: "If you are weak in law, stress the facts; if you are weak in facts, stress the law; but if you are weak in both facts and law, give them hell!" The way India has been giving hell to all its critics would please that lawyer.

To recapitulate, the question needs to be faced: at what point of time and by what justifiable means did Kashmir become a part of India? By the Maharaja's accession? But India itself  acknowledges that the accession was subject to plebiscite under international auspices. By the decision of the Constituent Assembly? But India assured the Security Council that the decision would not prejudge the plebiscite and come in its way. By the sheer passage of time? But, despite the lapse of decades, Kashmiris have shown themselves as unreconciled to Indian occupation and rule. By the elections held periodically in the Indian-occupied area? But these elections are known to have been rigged and their outcome is totally disowned by the people of Kashmir, as the mass uprising amply bears out.