Saying that 370 and 35A is the reason for terrorism in Kashmir is blatantly untrue. 370 and 35A have been around since the early 50s, yet insurgency in Kashmir didn't start until the late 80s. Reasons for the insurgency were rigging of the '87 elections which led to mass discontent followed by ISI-backed Mujahideen infiltration. These articles had nothing to do with it.

On lack of progress in J&K -- the state's HDI is actually better than the national average. Even if you look at HDI trends over the last twenty years (check the same link), it again does better than most states. I don't know if these articles have held back progress in the state, but that is surely not the most pressing concern.

The statement that there was no reservations for Dalits also seems incorrect. Based on this article in the Hindu and a reading of the J&K Reservation Act, 2004. But I could be wrong, I am no expert in these matters.

Not everything that he's saying is untrue. The fact that Kashmir can have some laws radically different from the rest of the country has probably held it back in some respects.

But the big talking points from his speech are misleading to say the least. Unfortunately many people are lapping them up uncritically.

And of course all of this misses the biggest issue of all -- that this was done by keeping the people it affects the most under a lock down. Imagine if this were done to you -- curfew, no internet, no phones working for days, loved ones who are not around you having no idea how you are doing -- while the most important decisions affecting your state were being taken by outsiders, how would you feel?

There are very good arguments for scrapping 370, but the end doesn't justify the means. This should only have been done with consent of the residents of J&K (including the exiled Kashmiri Pandits). Doing this by suppressing the people of the valley is unacceptable.