Regarding the Kashmir issue,

When British left India, they divided India into 565 princely state, eventually almost all princely states joined either India or Pakistan.

Jammu and Kashmir decided to stay independent by Harri Singh(King). Pakistan looked out it as opportunity and tried to seize J&K, later Harri Singh, came to seek out help from India. Then Vallabhbhai Patel(Deputy Prime Minister) took advantage of this situation and suggested J&K to become part of India.

There Harri Singh have signed making it part of India.

Indian government didn't occupy the area which is occupied by Pakistan, they have stopped Pakistan. But didn't push back Pakistan.

This part of area which is occupied by Pakistan is called as POK(Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) in India.

Later Article 370 was introduced as temporary provision for J&K, giving them special status in Indian constitution. Article 370 goes something like this:

1. Nobody can buy any land in J&K.

2. If a women marries any Indian citizen, she was denied as citizen of J&K.

3. ...

Most of the J&K citizens were unemployed because there is no investment. Terrorists have always seen this as opportunity and infiltrated into India and many Kashmirs were trained as terrorists. India lost nearly 40,000 soldiers in Kashmir.

From nearly 70 years, Kashmir have been easy target for terrorists groups, because citizens have got nothing to do, and some of them turned into extremists.

Indian government is used to pump in lot of money for some of J&K citizens for basic necessities with subsidies.

Regarding abrogation of article 370, Jammu and ladakh people were happy, some Kashmirs were not happy, and almost all of India is happy, regarding this change.

Regarding Muslims being suppressed, .... We live like brothers. With such a huge population, sometimes disputes happen, media take it to another level, showcasing it as if though this is how whole India is like.

Media turns even normal disputes into religious. Despite all this we live well.

What's strange? Scenarios where democracy is used to limit democracy aren't hard to understand. See the 2009 Venezuelan constitutional referendum or much of recent US policy towards immigrants and refuges.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to call authoritarian measures passed via democratic means undemocratic in themselves.

I hate to be That Person, but I don't think anyone thinks the regime Nazi Germany is democratic in the slightest, yet was brought to power with the backdrop of a decidedly democratic constitution. I'm not calling anyone a Nazi here, for the record, just that actions undertaken under a democratic framework can totally end up being undemocratic and is fair to characterize as such.

How good is the autonomy when it is used to deny women and gay rights?[1][2]

It seems that you are terribly misinformed about India. The country remains muliti-ethinic and diverse. Please read the Constitution which is available in public domain.

1. https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/kashmir-article-3...

2. https://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/what-you-may-not-know-about...

I’m talking about what the political rights of the people of Kashmir. Let’s not turn this into Muslim bashing or a discussion on women’s rights and gay rights, which is a totally different topic. Does India have a perfect record with these things? Shall we bring that up too? What about torture and abduction of people of Kashmir, the stripping away of rights to protest, internet and curfews?

I’m aware the constitution is multi ethnic and secular. I’m talking about what Modi and his party are doing to India. Kashmir was supposed to have special autonomy under article 370 of India’s constitution. India is acting very provocatively IMO by forcing it to give up autonomy.