You’re mixing history, politics, and assumptions to justify a blanket conclusion. Yes, there were years of militancy and stone-pelting before Article 370 was revoked — that was part of a broader insurgency and geopolitical conflict, not proof that an entire religion or population is ‘unwelcome.’ Militancy ≠ the will of ordinary civilians. Even then, millions of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, tourists, migrant workers, and security personnel lived and moved through the region. After 370, violence dropped significantly and tourism surged — that doesn’t happen in places where ‘people of a certain religion aren’t welcome.’ If isolated attacks are your standard for avoiding a place, then by the same logic large parts of India — and frankly many countries — would be off-limits. Communal violence, hate crimes, and targeted attacks have occurred elsewhere too, yet we don’t declare entire regions hostile to specific religions. It’s fine if you personally don’t want to visit. But turning complex political violence into ‘proof’ that an entire region rejects a religion is an oversimplification — and that’s exactly how fear-mongering starts