I suppose the libs will blame this on Bush and Iraq
"At the start of the nineteenth century, most of present-day Pakistan was under independent rulers. Sindh was ruled by the Muslim Talpur mirs (chiefs) in three small states that were annexed by the British in 1843.
"In Punjab, the decline of the Mughal Empire allowed the rise of the Sikhs, first as a military force and later as a political administration in Lahore.
"The kingdom of Lahore was at its most powerful and expansive during the rule of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, when Sikh control was extended beyond Peshawar, and Kashmir was added to his dominions in 1819. After Ranjit Singh died in 1839, political conditions in Punjab deteriorated, and the British fought two wars with the Sikhs.
"The second of these wars, in 1849, saw the annexation of Punjab, including the present-day North-West Frontier Province, to the company's territories. Kashmir was transferred by sale in the Treaty of Amritsar in 1850 to the Dogra Dynasty, which ruled the area under British paramountcy until 1947.
"...In Punjab, annexed in 1849, a group of extraordinarily able British officers, serving first the company and then the British crown, governed the area. They avoided the administrative mistakes made earlier in Bengal.
A number of reforms were introduced, although local customs were generally respected. Irrigation projects later in the century helped Punjab become the granary of northern India.
"The respect gained by the new administration could be gauged by the fact that within ten years Punjabi troops were fighting for the British elsewhere in India to subdue the uprising of 1857-58 (see the British Raj , this ch.).
"Punjab was to become the major recruiting area for the British Indian Army, recruiting both Sikhs and Muslims. "
==============
Source:http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+pk0017)
===============================

===============================
A VERY brief history of modern Kashmir
"Following the independence from British rule in 1947 and the partition of India and Pakistan, individual princely states in the subcontinent were given the choice of joining either of the two countries.
"The strategic value of Kashmir meant it was important for both countries to have it join their side.
"In 1948, the Maharaja signed accesion to India, much to the dismay of Pakistan. Pakistan feels that since the majority of the Kashmiri population is Muslim, Kashmir should belong to them.
"India maintains that since the ruler of Kashmir took the decision like other princely states did there should not be any question on the issue. Moreover India argues that since it is not strictly sectioned on the basis of one religion like Pakistan is, and since there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan, it should not matter if the majority of Kashmiris are Muslims.
This issue has remained a bone of contention between the two countries ever since."
....that the Allies won WWI and WWII. British colonization sowed the seeds of rule of law and individual liberty in America, India, Australia, etc.
Compared to the rapage and pillage of French/Spanish other colonial powers, Britain created the only friends we have in this world through their seapower.
That -we- aren't utilizing our superpower status in the 21st century as well as the British did says more about us than it does about 18th century British Imperialism.
One of the benefits of "colonization" as I understand, is that the Islamic tumor was removed from mainstream India in the form of Pakistan. May not have been a surgically precise job but it did save India a lot of headache.
Muslims were fighting Hindus over Kashmir well before the British even had a navy, or a king for that matter.