If you claim that latter was based on popular vote, just go look at which districts actually voted on it - only the muslim majority districts and NOT all of India.
That is false. The Muslim population of Bihar & UP (all of whom lived in Muslim-minority districts) almost unanimously voted for the Muslim League. By the 1946 elections, the ML was able to win over 90% of the Muslim vote across India...including areas that did not become a part of Pakistan [up until 1950, Hindus and Muslims voted separately in India and elected their own representatives].
Even if your fallacious statement was true, the areas that became Pakistan were all Muslim majority districts anyways...if most of the people in those areas supported separation (which they undeniably did), then democracy was served.
As for the rest of your post, it pretty clearly reflects upon an inability to understand basic written English, or a truly mindboggling level of intellectual dishonestly. Whatever the case, you're not worth my time.
You also said that the last election was not fixed. So why hurriyat did not contest and prove how much they are really worth.
And again, how does one "free" election change 60 year long trend?
Pakistan could not. It was not directly ruled by the British. It was the King to decide. Pathans jumped the gun there.
Really? So why did India invade Hindu-majority Junagadh in 1947 after the Nawab opted for Pakistan? So what if his decision was ridiculous and clearly went against the will of most of the population (India was all too happy to hold a plebiscite their just a few weeks after taking over)...it wasn't India's right to decide. It was the Nawab's right to decide.
I said it had a great Hindu culture. You agreed to it. Now I am not sure if Hinduism flourished in central asia before.
Thats again not right. Anything under Hinduism doesnt mean to be associated with India.
So then why are you bringing it up?
But the history of hindus in Kashmir is much more old than the influence India had on Afghanistan. Mostly through budhist and later muslim history.
I repeat...Kashmir was independent of India for over 1000 years prior to the Mughal invasion. And if you want to treat the Mughal Empire as your basis for defining what territories India has a legitimate claim over, then all of South India should be independent (the Mughals only controlled South India for a few decades under Aurangzeb), and all of Afghanistan should be part of India (it was part of the Mughal Empire far longer than Kashmir was).
The point is you dont have a reason not to do so.
That's for us to decide, not you.