It wasn't an attempt at whaboutism.

You stated:

the Kashmir populace was a LOT more enthusiastic about joining India in the 1940s and 50s, especially after the invasion of the Lashkars pushed into J&K by Pakistan.

This statement implies that invasions by Pakistani Lashkars made the populace 'enthusiastic about joining India.' I gave you a source (an Indian one actually) which highlights how the people in Jammu and Kashmir were being persecuted by the Dogra government, and anywhere from 50,000 - 200,000 were killed. They were already revolting and didn't want to be a part of either Dogra rule or India.

Even other parts of J&K like Gilgit were upset at the thought of being with India

The Shia I met was from Kargil.

The latter part of your argument sidetracks from our discussion on J&K to minority rights. I have plenty of discussions with Indians about it, and doesn't lead to anywhere. It's constant whataboutism from each side

cite reams of evidence of Shia persecution in the land of the pure,

I am sure you can. You will probably give a few news articles about attacks on Shias. Problem is that they don't depict the ground reality of affairs in Pakistan. A Pakistani Shia born and raised in Pakistan might be able to shed light on it. Fortunately for you, that would be me. There is no strucutral persecution against Shias. If anything they are perhaps a bit over-represented in public positions.