A 14 year old kid with Photoshop can make up a document and post it on the web.
The terms of the 1947 agreement were that muslim majority areas go to Pakistan.
Kashmir was overwhelmingly muslim and its population wanted to be with Pakistan.
Its Hindu ruler went against their wishes and brought in the Indian army to intimidate his own people into submission.
It is a testament to the human spirit of freedom that the proud Kashmiris
have refused to be bullied by the Indian thugs.
Oh c'mon. We can have an endless discussion on this issue. And I'm pretty sure there are threads on defence.pk which have discussed this issue extensively. Anyways, here it goes -
*Before 1947, Kashmir was not "overwhelingly" Muslim. It had a sizable Hindu minority known as Kashmiri Pandits. Since Kashmiri insurgency began, 400,000 of them have fled Kashmir (source: CIA World Factbook). If the future of Kashmir needs to be decided, then the voice of all those Hindu Kashmiris need to be heard.
*UN Resolution 47 in 1948 clearly states that for any plebiscite to occur in Kashmir, Pakistan must immediately withdraw all of its troops. Pakistan never did and instead altered the demographics of the region by encouraging settlement of people from neighboring areas.
*There was no such "1947 agreement" between India and Pakistan. The Raj decided that all presidencies and provinces of British India with Muslim-majority population will go to Pakistan while the princely states will be allowed to decide their own fate. And Kashmir was a princely state, not a presidency or a province. So, Kashmir's maharaja had every right to decide the fate of his kingdom.
*And if the Kashmiris are so much against Indian rule, then why did Operation Gibraltar fail? Why have pro-India parties like National Conference and PDP won elections for so many years now? As a matter of fact, in May 2009, separatist leader Sajjad Lone lost the election.
To end, there are protests every where in India. Go to Delhi anytime and some or the organization will be protesting against the Indian government. Does that mean that people protesting are anti-India? In a diverse country like India, disaffection and discontent are not uncommon. Indian democracy has the necessary resilience to accommodate genuine grievances of the Indian people within the framework of our sovereignty, unity and integrity.
And history shows that the Government of India has expressed its willingness to accommodate the legitimate political demands of the people of Kashmir - for example, Kashmiris enjoy autonomy under Article 370 of Indian Constitution and Kashmir Armed Forces Act is under review.