So small technical equipment as a basis to question the authenticity of the J-K IoA, perhaps not to advance the debate, because the crash is visible in at least one other IoA of which I was able to obtain a copy of the National Archives. In the Mysore IoA, for example, the acceptance date was first mentioned as the “ninth” day of August in black ink. Lord Mountbatten seems to have entered the correct date, namely the “sixteenth”, while adding his signature. The correction is done in green ink – the same color he used to sign his acceptance of every IoA I looked at. In the case of the status quo agreement with Mysore, the Tauan signed the signed portion of the Secretary of the States Department of the Dominion. Thus, the name of V. P. Menon had to be entered manually at the end of this document. As the documents published here show, the leaders of Mysore, Tehri Garhwal, Manipur and Udaipur did not sign the status quo agreements attached to the IoAs, nor did Lord Mountbatten attach his signature to the same signature. In all these cases, the status quo agreements were signed by the subordinates of the sovereigns. In the case of Mysore, the status quo agreement was signed by the Dewan (Prime Minister) of Mysore, in the case of Manipur, it was signed by the private secretary of the Maharadsche, in the case of Tehri Garhwal, it was signed by the Chief Secretary of State and, in the case of Udaipur, it was signed by the then Prime Minister. Article 370 was introduced in the Indian Constitution from this instrument of accession and in the statements of the aforementioned members of the committee. 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.” Before closing, it is necessary to dispel another myth, popularized by those who question the existence of the IoA J-K.
Its origin seems to be based on the writing attributed to Prof. Lamb.  If he really wrote that the signed copy of the IoA was never attached to the Government`s 1948 White Paper on J-K, nor in the documents that the Indian government sent to the United Nations Security Council this year, this discrepancy can be explained in simple terms. In the late 1940s and 1950s, there were no photocopies and mimographies available in India. Thus, the government may have attached only a copy of the IoA model, which has often been used to ensure the adherence of the 140 princely states to these documents. I have already shown that the text of the IoA models has been reinvented to move them before the CA-L.