[_jgdh]

In my opinion, residents of J&K already get a number of privileges that other states don't. For example, laws passed by Parliament don't apply there until they're ratified by the State Assembly. Granting them additional autonomy and privileges isn't simple, because it doesn't square with the Constitution's tenet that all citizens are equal and deserve equal protection of laws. For example, Kashmiris can own property in the rest of India but other Indians can't own property in Kashmir.

You correctly call into question the agreement signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir, but I could just as easily ask about every other territory that's a part of the Union of India. Why should the writ of New Delhi run to places where the people are ethnically, linguistically and culturally different, such as Tamil Nadu? After all, at no point did Tamils accede to the Union and they have suffered discrimination before - such as when Delhi tried to impose Hindi on a Tamil-speaking population in 1965. Do Tamils deserve special privileges then? No, that's absurd.

To clarify, I think Article 370 that grants Kashmir special status should be scrapped, because they don't deserve special treatment. Apart from that, I think a referendum should be held there. I don't think it will bury the issue (look at Scotland), but it will mollify most people who live there for some time.