Some local leaders of the princely states have tried to buy time by declaring that they will sign the status quo agreement, but not the accession instrument until they have had time to make up their minds. In response, the Indian government considered that it would only sign status quo agreements with the states that joined the Union.  Until August 15, 1947, the agreed date and date of India`s independence, all but four princely states, which are Indian, signed about 560 of them, both the accession instrument and the status quo agreement with India. The exceptions were Hyderabad, a large state in central South India, which received a two-month extension, and three small states of Gujarat: Junagadh and its subsidiaries (Mangrol and Babariawad).  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.
 Hyderabad violated all the terms of the agreement: in foreign affairs, by carrying out intrigues with Pakistan, to which it secretly lent 15 million pounds; in defence, by building a large semi-military army; communication, through interventions in border traffic and transit traffic of Indian railways.  India has also been accused of violating the agreement by imposing an economic blockade. It turns out that the State of Bombay unknowingly intervened from Delhi in deliveries to Hyderabad. The government has promised to take it with the provincial governments, but scholar Lucien Benichou says it has never been done. India also delayed India`s arms deliveries to Hyderabad, which was later de affirmed as a violation of the status quo agreement.  Third, the status quo agreements attached are an additional element that confirms the authenticity of Jammu and Kashmir IoA.