[shripadk]

No one suppressed secession. There have been secession movements not just in Kashmir but in North East too. That doesn't give anyone the authority to conduct terror attacks on fellow citizens. When things go beyond a point of no return then force is needed. Since the day India Abrogated Article 370 there hasn't been one major terror attack in Kashmir. That is good enough for the rest of India that was sick and tired of hearing Civilians and Army men being targeted by terrorists in Kashmir ever since the Kashmiri Pandit exodus in the 1990s. If you want to learn a thing or two about India, you better read up on Exodus and Genocide Kashmiri Pandits and how they are now refugees in their own country. Then you have the rights to lecture Indians on what is democracy and what is tyranny. We have been the most accommodative over the years and our patience has been tested far beyond permissible limit. India already went through a terrible Partition in 1947 on Religious lines where Muslims did not want to live with Hindus. Did that solve the problem? Nope. We already had one Partition. Won't allow more. And we shouldn't even be justifying it. It is surprising to me that people here question the decisions of a Sovereign Nation on what it should and should not do. Would you be willing to have your Nation broken up into multiple pieces because some Tom, Dick or Harry doesn't like the way it is now? Don't be ridiculous!

[stordoff]

> Would you be willing to have your Nation broken up into multiple pieces because some Tom, Dick or Harry doesn't like the way it is now?

As someone who conceivably sees this happening to his country in the relatively near future (English; Scotland leaving the UK), I'm not sure it's my right to prevent the secession of an identifiable group/country/region (the special status under Article 370 seems to suggest Jammu and Kashmir _might_ be such) against their will.

> Since the day India Abrogated Article 370 there hasn't been one major terror attack in Kashmir.

Only six months on from abrogation I'd be somewhat reluctant to draw any firm conclusions. Based on my limited understanding, major attacks do not seem to be have been of such a frequency that you would necessarily expect one to occur within that six month period.

[shripadk]

> the special status under Article 370 seems to suggest Jammu and Kashmir _might_ be such

Nope. Article 370 was always a temporary provision. It was not permanent Special Status. The Act itself said that the provision was temporary and could be lifted by just Presidential Consent. And the will of the people cannot be taken into account without considering Kashmiri Pandits who are the original inhabitants of Kashmir but were kicked out by Jihadis in the 90s. Read up on Exodus and Genocide of Kashmiri Pandits. They are living as refugees in their own country. For past 30 years. Has there been a greater injustice than this? And you can see the vitriol against the Pandits in the comment section for yourself. See your sibling comment on how ridiculous some can get when it comes to the treatment meted out to the Pandits. If this is how their reaction is towards Kashmiri Pandits in the virtual world imagine what it is like on ground. They were given 3 options: Raliv, Galiv ya Chaliv which translates to Convert, Die or Leave. Another popular slogan: "Leave your women behind". You may have calls for separatism in your country but it was never on religious lines. You will never understand that pain.

[selimthegrim]

So we are going to go back to Pandits taking 75% of seats in NIT Srinagar? Is that acchhe din?