Standstill Agreement Of Kashmir
A status quo agreement was an agreement signed between the newly independent dominions of India and Pakistan and the princely states of the Anglo-Indian Empire before their integration into the new Dominions. The form of the agreement was bilateral between a Dominion and a princely state. It provided that all existing administrative agreements between the British Crown and the State between the undersigned domination (India or Pakistan) and the Princely State would not be modified until new agreements were concluded.  The Shimla Agreement: The Shimla Agreement was signed in 1972 between India and Pakistan to establish peace between the two countries after the war of independence in Bangladesh. Another line of control has been established between Indian-controlled Kashmir and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. The two countries agreed to end the conflict and confrontation and settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations without third-party intervention. The signing of the agreement essentially made Jammu and Kashmir a bilateral dispute. The Nizam of Hyderabad, which had previously been granted a three-month extension to conclude new agreements with the Dominion of India, wrote to the Indian government on 18 September that it was ready to conclude an association agreement with India. He said, however, that membership would cause unrest and bloodshed in the state.  On October 11, Hyderabad sent a delegation to Delhi with a draft status quo agreement, described as “complex” by V.
P. Menon, Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Minister of State Vallabhbhai Patel rejected any deal that would not fully cede defence and foreign policy to the Indian government. On the advice of Governor-General Louis Mountbatten, Menon prepared a new draft treaty that was sent back with the Hyderabad delegation. Nizam`s executive council discussed the agreement and approved it by six votes to three. Nizam expressed its agreement but delayed the signing of the agreement.  Readers may wonder about the letter that Maharaja Hari Singh allegedly sent to Lord Mountbatten, as well as the signed IoA and the response he sent back to the Maharaja. Those documents, the existence of which is fortunately not at issue, do not appear in the file containing the IoA and the standstill agreement. You seem to remain in the custody of the Union Ministry of the Interior.
The text of this correspondence is published in a document published by the Political Department of the Ministry of State.  Some local leaders of the Princes tried to buy time by declaring that they would sign the status quo agreement, but not the instrument of accession, until they had time to choose. In response, the Government of India took the position that it would only sign status quo agreements with states that had acceded.  Until August 15, 1947, the fixed date and date of India`s independence, all but four princely states within India, about 560 of them, signed both the instrument of accession and the status quo agreement with India. The exceptions were Hyderabad, a large state in central India, enlarged by two months, and three small states of Gujarat: Junagadh and its subsidiaries (Mangrol and Babariawad).  It will not be an exaggeration to describe IoAs and status quo agreements as threads that bring together the different administrative courts into a single Union. . . .