Why are you resorting to name-calling? Please read the guidelines again.
Abrogation of 370 happened because it was a temporary provision, allowed regressive practices like Triple Talaq and Child marriage, prevented legitimate inheritance. There are many other reasons that Amit Shah stated in his address in the Parliament. I request you to watch it if you haven't.
Or if you want to take the intersectionalist view to its conclusion: Maybe we should have a White President to govern white people, and a Black President to govern black people, and a Muslim President to govern Muslims, and a Fat President to govern fat people. Wait a second, what about fat white Muslims, shouldn't they have a different President than fat black Muslims? Degenerate down only a handful of dimensions over which people vary, and you'll need a President for every individual. Wait a second, we just rediscovered the concept of individual sovereignty.
I can't tell if you're being ironic. Because many similar things happened to Catalonia two years ago: arresting Catalan leaders, suspending parliamentary rule and autonomy, violently suppressing protests and dissent, censoring the Internet, imposing martial law.
Many of Catalonia's political leadership and activists are still in jail, and facing years of prison: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/12-catalan-leaders-fa... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41678086
The only thing that categorically did not happen from your list was an incursion by the Spanish military into Catalonia, although even that seemed possible for a period of time.
I agree with your stance re: autonomy, but Catalonia was a rather poor example.
May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example but I wanted to cite something that felt a bit more real and relatable.
Yes, this is the major difference between the two regions. But in terms of recent events, the main difference between Kashmir and Catalonia -- other than the lack of military involvement in Catalonia -- is the greater degree of oppression in Kashmir. Similar strategies and tactics were used by the more powerful polity in both crises.
> May be Scotland and the UK would have been a better example
Yes, I originally wrote that in my comment, but deleted it because it seemed too rambling. In any case, I wouldn't hold up the reaction of the Spanish government to Catalonia's moves toward greater autonomy to be some kind of democratic ideal.
Just kidding, I don't view the world that way. But I will highlight that, historically, it's been common to have various degrees of autonomy across nation states. Even today, Californians are consistently choosing less autonomy than other U.S. states.
But I digress. Another digression might involve suggesting undemocratic things are not implicitly bad, even if the rule of democracy is better. Putting down rebellions, for example. Or increasing police presence in high crime areas where criminals, or those scared of them, wouldn't vote for it.
But more to the core of the point, I'm not sure it's helpful to proliferate the perspective that variation in autonomy (or standard of living or what have you) is primarily a consequence of group identity without extraordinarily convincing reasons to believe so. Doing so opens the door to suggesting that that ought to be how it is, if the Other is, in your your view, trying to reduce your autonomy. An example where this might be justified is the literal concentration camps that the Chinese continue to impose on their religious and ethnic minorities.
The American culture is starting to see everything through group identity colored goggles, and that spells complete destruction for the country and our ability to reason about diplomacy.