I dont know if it was demography that they were worried about.
Pure speculation on your part.
Pakistan had insisted that it was the Kings prerogative to decide where to join. They were sure that many of the 500 princely state would join them, as India had made it clear that they would dissolve the princely states, and kings and sultans have to live like ordinary citizens. Pakistan accepted the instrument of accession on Septembe 5 1947. Just 20 days after independence.
None of this changes the fact that GOP was in no way pushing the Nawab of Junagadh to sign his state over to them...in fact, it's pretty clear that they were reluctant to even accept his state. India, on the other hand, was greedily eying J&K since before independence.
But you always fail to mention how many Hindus died at the hands of Pathan invaders with local support of Muslims in poonch and other areas now known as POK.
I love how everything is a pissing contest with you Indians. Instead of recognizing the horrible reality of the fact that nearly 40% of Jammu's Muslim population was massacred by the Maharaja's armies and the RSS...you people just ignore/deny/defend it and shift the topic to the number of Hindus killed later on during the Pathan invasion.
Frankly, I haven't seen any numbers published in the international media...I'm sure thousands were killed, which is no doubt an absolute travesty. But since this is apparently a contest for you...given the fact that the total pre-Partition Hindu/Sikh population of what is now Azad Kashmir was around 130,000 (~15% of 900,000...and a little over half the number of Muslims butchered in Jammu), I have a hard time believing that the Pathans matched the Dogras on the genocide front.
I don't think anyone, Kashmiri or otherwise, denies that the Pathans did plenty of looting and killing during their invasion. You Indians, on the other hand, love to keep your heads in the sand when it comes to the massacres that precipitated the whole invasion.
Not till they start hobnobbing with Pakistan. Nawab, one of the richest person in the country was using his money to bankroll the pakistani exchequere.
The India Independence Act left the princes theoretically free to accede to either dominion. ... The khan of Kalat in Balochistan declared independence on August 15, 1947, but offered to negotiate a special relationship with Pakistan. Other Baloch sardar (tribal chiefs) also expressed their preference for a separate identity. Pakistan took military action against them and the khan and brought about their accession in 1948.
More Indian hypocrisy. India was justified in economically strangling (and ultimately invading) the independent state of Hyderabad because the Nizam had friendly relations with Pakistan, and saved the GOP from bankruptcy when India (as always acting in bad faith) tried to bring the country to its knees by refusing to release Pakistan's share of the national exchequer.
But its a travesty when Pakistan absorbs Kalat (which, BTW, is only a small part of modern day Balochistan...the rest of the state joined Pakistan willingly) after the Khan violates the treaty he had already signed with the GOP, and, much to the horror of his subjects, starts secretly negotiating with Nehru about handing his state over to India. Never mind the fact that much of the pressure to join Pakistan came from the local Balochis themselves...horrified by the prospect of an Indian takeover.