The question of Junagadh remains one of the unresolved territorial and constitutional disputes arising from the Partition of British India in 1947. While the Jammu and Kashmir dispute has received considerable international attention, the case of Junagadh has largely remained outside the mainstream international debate. Nevertheless, its historical circumstances raise important questions about the legal rights of princely states, the principles governing accession and the right of people to determine their political future.The princely State of Junagadh, situated in the Kathiawar Peninsula of present-day Gujarat, had its own ruler, administration and established political identity before Partition. Under the Indian Independence Act 1947, British paramountcy over the princely states lapsed, allowing their rulers to decide whether to accede to India or Pakistan. The legal framework did not expressly restrict this choice to geographical contiguity, although geographical, economic and administrative considerations were politically significant. On 14 September 1947, Nawab Mahabat Khanji III signed the Instrument of Accession, formally acceding Junagadh to Pakistan. Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Governor-General of Pakistan, accepted the Instrument on 15 September 1947. The accession was therefore formally executed and accepted under the constitutional arrangements then applicable to the princely states. The document remains central to Pakistan’s historical and legal position on Junagadh.The Indian government, however, rejected this accession, primarily invoking Junagadh’s geographical location, its predominantly Hindu population and its economic links with neighbouring Indian territories. India argued that the decision was impractical and contrary to the wishes of the population. Pakistan maintained that the Nawab, as the sovereign ruler of the princely state under the prevailing constitutional arrangement, possessed the authority to decide its accession.
Following Junagadh’s accession to Pakistan, India exerted considerable political and economic pressure on the state. An economic blockade, political interference and the support extended to an alternative provisional administration weakened Junagadh’s capacity to maintain its independent position. The deteriorating situation eventually compelled the Nawab to leave the state.On 9 November 1947, Indian forces invaded the State and assumed control of Junagadh’s administration. Pakistan regarded this military invasion as unlawful occupation that disregarded the previously executed Instrument of Accession.
India subsequently organized a referendum in February 1948, under its administration, claiming that an overwhelming majority of voters favored accession to India. However, Pakistan questioned the legitimacy and impartiality of this exercise, particularly because it took place after Indian military invaded the state and Nawab’s government had been displaced. The absence of an independently supervised process remains an important element of Pakistan’s objection to the manner in which Junagadh was incorporated into India.The Junagadh dispute cannot be examined in isolation from Jammu and Kashmir. Both cases emerged from the same historical circumstances of Partition and involved competing claims concerning accession, constitutional authority and popular consent.India could not have rejected Junagadh’s accession to Pakistan since it was a legal accession.
Pakistan raised the Junagadh issue before the United Nations in January 1948 as part of its wider complaint concerning disputes with India. The United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 51 of 3 June 1948 directed the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan to examine matters raised in Pakistan’s communication, which included Junagadh. However, the dispute never received a comprehensive international settlement. Today, Pakistan continues to recognize Junagadh’s accession and includes the state in its official political maps. The descendants of the Nawab, who reside in Karachi, have also continued to highlight their historical connection with the former princely state and seek recognition of their inherited rights.Pakistan observes 9 November as the day of Indian military invasion of the State of Junagadh’s like it observes 27 October as the day of Indian occupation of Jammu and Kashmir state. Both issues are still unresolved.
After 79 years, Junagadh should not be treated merely as a forgotten chapter of Partition. It represents a broader question concerning the application of constitutional principles, the legitimacy of territorial incorporation and the right of people to determine their political future.Pakistan must continue raising the Junagadh issue alongside Jammu and Kashmir through diplomatic engagement, international legal scholarship, regional forums and sustained public diplomacy. Historical documents, including the Instrument of Accession, should be preserved, examined and presented before relevant international institutions to strengthen informed debate.
A just and durable peace in South Asia cannot be built upon selective interpretations of history or the unilateral settlement of disputed questions. India must recognize that lasting stability requires dialogue, consistency in the application of legal principles and respect for the legitimate aspirations of affected populations.The international community should not overlook Junagadh simply because it has remained outside the center of international attention. The principles of justice, constitutional legitimacy and self-determination cannot be applied selectively. The unresolved question of Junagadh, like Jammu and Kashmir, deserves a peaceful, impartial and just resolution.
— The writer is Professor of Politics and IR at International Islamic University,
Islamabad.
