To answer the first question, state institutions can be made more representative of the society they govern, but achieving this goal can be complex, especially when dealing with various grievances among different segments of the population. In the late 19th century in Jammu and Kashmir, there was a growing demand for representative rule. The British urged the Hindu Dogra rulers to better represent their predominantly Muslim subjects. However, the reforms that followed ended up deepening religious divisions rather than bridging them.

Under Dogra rule, people were primarily classified as Hindu or Muslim, with unequal treatment of their religious events and rituals. Since the Dogras derived legitimacy for their rule by promoting themselves as Hindu Rajputs, their policies favored Hinduism such as through state support for temples, while Muslim shrines and leaders were undermined. Dogra policies targeted both the communal ethnic identity and the faith practices of Kashmiri Muslims, who faced restrictions on practices like the Azaan (call to prayer).

The British pushed the Dogra state to allow certain Muslim practices like the Azaan but maintained an ambivalent stance on other practices such as cow slaughter which was prohibited based on Hindu religious sentiments. The Muslims, however, saw this prohibition as an attack on Islam and asserted their right to slaughter cows, especially for Eid sacrifices. When rumors of cow slaughters circulated, there were protests from Hindus which led to a severe crackdown from the Dogra state. Legislation on the ban on cow slaughter was tightened by making it a non-bailable offense punishable by longer imprisonment. Although the British did not directly intervene against the ban itself, they pressured the Dogras not to suppress Muslim religious rights entirely and discouraged them from penalizing Muslims based on mere suspicion.

Hence, the British adopted a middle path – rejecting extra-legal persecution of Muslims over cow killing but unwilling to upend the ban itself. This biased neutrality ended up fueling Hindu-Muslim tensions rather than resolving the cow slaughter conflict. Other reforms encouraged by the British also protected the privileges of Kashmiri Pandits and Dogra elites, such as land settlements that favored Pandit landholders over Muslim cultivators.
Although these reforms encouraged by the British created expectations among Muslims that their rights would be protected, in practice, the state continued to privilege Hindu interests over Muslim demands for equal rights and religious freedom.