Agreement On Kashmir
It appears that the agreement was kept as a secret document until the 1990s. It has not been reported in the press articles of 1949, the memoirs of Sardar Ibrahim or other sources. It was first revealed in the gilgit and Baltistan judgment (northern zone) by the Azad Kashmir High Court in the 1990s, which says the agreement “appears to have been executed on April 28, 1949.” Later, it was published in 2008 by Judge Syed Manzoor Hussain Gilani as Annex XVII of the Constitution of Azad Jammu – Kashmir.   According to Christopher Snedden, the agreement was very favourable to Pakistan, depriving Azad Kashmiris of considerable powers and responsibilities.  With regard to the loss of Gilgit-Baltistan, Snedden Sardar accepts the argument that Azad Kashmir`s physical ties to Gilgit-Baltistan are weak. It was expected that Pakistan would manage it more easily via Peshawar or Rawalpindi.  However, in the years that followed, Azad Kaschmir tried to regain control of Gilgit-Baltistan through various means. In 1972, the Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly passed a resolution on the recovery of Gilgit-Baltistan. The intermediate constitution of Azad Kashmir, formulated in 1974, lists gilgit-Baltistan as part of Azad Kashmir. In 1992, the Azad Kashmir High Court admitted a petition and ordered that the government of Azad Kashmir take control of Gilgit-Baltistan. However, the order was challenged in the Supreme Court of Azad Kashmir, which overturned it, although he claimed that gilgit-Baltistan was part of Jammu and Kashmir.  The people of Gilgit-Baltistan would have been outraged by the Karachi agreement because there were no representatives of them who thought that the agreement was the fate of Gilgit-Baltistan.  Independence Act 1947 is not independent of the GOI Act of 1935.
The unrest in Muslim-led Kashmiran Kashmir was directed against Hindu Maharaja nit against the establishment itself. The current Imbroglio is based on the same,, to honor the separation of Muslim hegemony and majoratarionism. The Aetucle produces selective references to events to advance a pro Kashmiri Muslim narrative, thus undermining the sovereignty and integrity of secular democratic India. India cannot let a de facto Muslim state operate on the ground of secular democratic India. It`s got to get worse. The accession instrument signed by the Maharaja, with its own single clauses, was seen as a quasi-temporary agreement between J-K and India, but just like other princely states, namely Hyderabad and Travancore, they had their own clauses, which were inserted into their accession instruments, which were watered down when the time came and that these princely states were entirely part of India`s constitution. , as well as the J-K membership clauses. In this sense, the current revocation of Article 370 is exactly under the constitution of India and it is high time that Kashmiris accepted that they are legitimate citizens of India and that they deny the external influences that indoctrinate them and strive to lead peaceful and prosperous lives.