Transfer of forest land in Kashmir to Hindu pilgrims

Considering the fact that most instruments of accession were accepted by India/Pakistan within a day or two (J&K included), a month long delay (Pakistan accepted on Sept 13, 1947) is indeed a sign of reluctance. If that's not enough, there's also the fact that Liaquat Ali Khan and the Government of Pakistan agreed to settle the state's final status by referendum...India, acting in bad faith as always, decided it couldn't wait and invaded the state.

Pointing out the context under which the Pathans invaded to Indians who apparently are in complete denial about the situation in the state hardly counts as "sensationalizing."

The rebellion was actually began as a result of the Maharaja's oppressive taxation policies.

Ummm...which PM was Pakistani? Mir Laik Ali was a native Hyderabadi businessman. As for "killing subjects"...I'm assuming you're talking about the Nizam's response to the Telangana Rebellion. If that's enough to justify an Indian invasion, then its *beyond hypocritical *(not that I'm surprised) of you to condemn any of Pakistan's actions in J&K. Not only did the Maharaja fire his Kashmiri PM at Gandhi's insistence, and replace him with a Punjabi Indian...but he also proceeded to use his personal army (and that of Patiala state) to massacre at least 200,000 of his subjects.