No comparison can be completely identical, but in both cases, regardless of the attempts by the Indian State to cover up its forced annexation of the territory and people of Kashmir, the fact is that the people and territory are forcibly occupied.
Better than starting a war by illegally invading an independent entity and creating a mess in the first place.
No matter how much you would like to believe in the illegality of accession of J&K to India, the fact remains that the whole world (except for some delusional entities) accept the legal document of accession.
The rest of the sops 'promised' to Kashmiris depend solely on territorial integrity of the 'state' and not parts thereof.
Anyway, as EzajR so clearly put it, Kashmiris has full representation to the Indian Parliament which their compatriots in other occupied territories are deprived of.
Again, does not change the fact that the people and territory are occupied and denied the promised right to self-determination. Occupiers can implement any number of policies to legitemize their occupation and win over the occupied, the fact that the people are occupied however does not change, and it is patently obvious that in Kashmir the people refuse to accept Indian occupation.
Why should they be treated with 'kid gloves'? Why give them the 'right for self-determination'? Are they a special breed? Kashmir "struggle" was started by the Kashmiri pundits - who were conveniently driven out by moral sponsors of this unrest and now have usurped this movement on religious grounds. This is plain hypocrisy.
I say scrape Article 370, fully integrate the whole state into Indian Union, let other Indians buy property in Kashmir (like they are allowed to buy property in other Indian states) and deport the trouble makers to build roads in NE.
Enough of this showing of so called 'moral support' by outsiders - based solely on religious grounds. Nothing else.
So does Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, or for that matter Afghanistan - that does not justify the occupation and annexation of Afghan/Pakistani/Sri lankan/Bangladeshi/Nepali territory by India.
If anyone signs a treaty of accession, then yes - J&K did, it is fully justified. Your argument doesn't hold weight AM.
Well, obviously there is a need for greater education, to enhance their "sensitivity".
Yeah, we all see how that 'greater education promoting sensitivity' is unfolding in Pakistan. Keep that "education" to yourselves - thank you.