On August 12, 1947, J-K entered into a status quo agreement with India and Pakistan and stated: „Jammu and the Government of Kashmir would welcome a status quo agreement with the Indian Union/Pakistan on all matters on which there are agreements with the outgoing government of British India.“ Pakistan immediately denied membership and suggested that it was fraudulent, that the Maharajah had acted under duress and that he had no right to sign an agreement with India while the status quo agreement with Pakistan was still in force. Soon the Nizams found themselves under pressure from Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (Ittehad), the Muslim nationalist party that was active in the state and withdrew from the agreement.  On the morning of 27 October, Qasim Rizvi, the leader of Ittehad, organized a massive demonstration by several thousand activists to block the delegation`s withdrawal. He convinced Nizam that, as India was then linked to the defence of Kashmir, it did not exceed sufficient resources to put pressure on Hyderabad. He claimed that a Hyderabad princess could get a much more favorable deal.  Nizam then appointed a new delegation, dominated by members of the Executive Council opposed to the previous agreement.  Former Hyderabad bureaucrat Mohammed Hyder called the event the „October coup.“ From that moment on, Qasim Rizvi began calling the gunfire in the Hyderabad administration.  According to K.M Munshi, appointed India`s general agent in Hyderabad, the Indians felt that the conclusion of a status quo agreement with Hyderabad meant that India had lost control of Hyderabad`s affairs. The Hyderabad State Congress opposed it because it was seen by the Indian government as a sign of weakness.  V. P. Menon stated that Nizam and his advisers viewed the agreement as a respite from which Indian troops would be withdrawn and the state could establish its position to maintain its independence.  First of all, the document signed by the Maharajah of J-K, like several other IoAs, consists of two parts.
The first three pages contain the text of the terms of membership – it is the IoA itself. Page 2 of the document bears the signature of Maharaja Hari Singh and the acceptance of the instrument signed by Lord Mountbatten. Page 3 contains a list of topics on which the powers of the Dominion Legislature to enforce laws for J-K have been accepted by the Maharaja on the basis of this instrument of membership. Pages 4 and 5 contain the status quo agreement between J-K and the Dominion of India, as it was called in 1947, before India became a republic. The IoAs signed by the various other princely states contain a status quo agreement between them and the Dominion of India as annexs.  I went to the shelves at the end of the room, my shoes creaked on the extra smooth floor, butterflies floated in my belly. The J-K IoA was in a cream-colored folder at a corner of a shelf waiting to be retrieved. The last time I was so excited was a few days earlier, when I discovered a reference to this document in the index of 1,847 contracts and agreements transferred by the central government to the National Archives for Safe Conservation.
 It will not be an exaggeration to describe status quo agreements and status quo agreements as the strings that the various administrative tribunals draw from the Union. Instead of tidying them up and giving researchers access only on request, the National Archives should work with the government to display them in a museum that people can visit as they see fit. Citizens have the right to know more about the constituent elements of India. Readers may ask for the letter Maharaja Hari Singh allegedly sent to Lord Mountbatten with the signed IOA and the reply he sent back to the Maharaja. These documents, the existence of which is fortunately not at issue, are not included in the file containing the IoA and the status quo agreement. They appear to remain in the custody of the Union`s Ministry of the Interior.