I know i will be sparking off a controversy here, and this debate now mite take turn towards Kashmir, but here goes.....
I can partly give into your arguments that the people of Kashmir have mixed feelings about their association with India. This is not to say that all of them wants a secession. There are arguments on both side of the debate within the state. Having said that.... states which had some justifiable concerns on joining the Union of India after independence and thereafter, i.e states which thought that amalgamation into the union will have an impact on their cultural identity were given some special privileges. These include J&K, Nagaland, Mizoram , Manipur , Sikkim etc.All these states at some point had mixed feelings about their place in the Union. Their were uprisings, protests, insurgencies... but these were overcome by mutual discussions within the ambit of the constitution. India being a highly diverse country faces such problems every now and then.... Punjab being an excellent examples. Today almost no anti-India activity takes place over there. My point is problems such as Kashmir have constitutional channels to be resolved. The govt. knows there is a problem, and it would be solved peacefully in due course.
To argue on ur point that Kashmiris do not want to be governed by the Indian constitution is part true, part Pakistani propaganda. Don't take it otherwise....Hence it is governed by the Article 370 besides the Indira-Sheikh Accord of 1974. Special privilages to the state are given under this agreement.
1974 Indira?Sheikh accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia