The referendum questions, as RR pointed out, are answered in the thread whose link he posted.
However, I wasn't arguing about whose fault it was that the UN resolutions were not implemented, but that the condition of plebiscite attached to the IoA and the UNSC resolutions indicating the same as a solution to the dispute indicate quite clearly what the road map to a settlement is - a referendum.
Your 'secular ethos' has no place here - this is a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan that dates back to 1947, and in resolving it one of the proposals is to utilize some of the conditions used for the partition of British India.
What dispute runs deeper than Kashmir? All our wars, bar 1971 (initiated by India, so perhaps the hatred is on your side) were over Kashmir, our military has developed because of Kashmir, the refusal to normalize relations has been over Kashmir. Your hypothesis is just a fantasy, with no facts backing it up.
Communal sentiment in India is not our problem - if you cannot control extremist Hindus from retaliating against Muslims because a territorial dispute unresolved from partition was resolved per the conditions of the instrument of accession and UNSC resolutions, then you are a highly flawed society and nation.
The Khalistan movement thing is another canard - what little support Pakistan gave it was in the aftermath of 1971, and so considered payback for what was done then. However, since BB gave up the leadership, the Pakistani establishment has not pursued the issue, and given that we are not supporting it currently, while Kashmir is not resolved, I see no reason why we would support it after the major source of tension is gone.
It also have to point out that the hostility in 1971, and the sentiment that led to support for the Khalistani movement, however briefly, find root in the Kashmir dispute, since the underlying hostility between the two nations was a direct result of an unresolved Kashmir and events related to it.