There is no conflict . It is an occupation. Following up to india's independence all princely states were given right to choose their side. Among these states were Junagadh and kashmir. Junagadh was hindu populace state with muslim ruler, kashmir was muslim populace state with hindu ruler. The rulers of jungadh and kashmir decided to join pkaistan and india respectively. However in september 1947 India annexed Junagadh militarily. When pakistan objected to it, a plebicite was held where majority hindu voted to remain with india. Subsequently a similar plebisite was demandde for kashmir from international community. India promised that they will , which never came. And india has occupied the state ever since. Majority of kashmir want end to milatary occupation and right to self determination , not necesaarily to join pakistan but to gain independence.

I went to kashmir many times, there are 2 things people should know, the state of original Kashmir consists of buddhists, hindus and Muslims. Earlier due to the rise of extremism in muslim population, hindus were ethnically cleansed from the Kashmir valley region. There is still significant amount of buddhists and hindus in jammu and ladakh regions. Due to the rise of wahabism and extremist ideology supported by Pakistan, there is much tension and expections of violence. The largest communist party of India has a member from Kashmir and it standpoint is, it will return the state autonomy with enhanced protection laws for all people. It will take development measures to dilute the extremism. Like Xinjiang as an important autonomous state within China and we cannot give Kashmir away to separatists and religious extremists who could carry out ethnic cleansing of hindus and buddhists if they come to power. There are also good secular muslim forces and political parties within the kashmir and we should enhance that.

https://cpim.org/kashmir-betrayed/

India should completely remove its asserting power out of kashmir. That includes bunch of different paramilitaries. On top of that there should be a tribunal to convict all the perpetrators of pogroms in the region who are from either indian paramilitaries or related to other fascist groups. But this is all even a start.

At this point india is not only an occupying force there, it also wants to do projects with america there. There's plans eyeing land and resources like lithium. America or its proxies have a presence and they extend this intelligence to people doing rohingya genocide even.

This off the top of my head. I need to collect more of thoughts to be more clear.

I dread answering this question, feeling that I want to escape this, because this isn't something that I am comfortable being asked. I feel conflicted, being raised in the hardcore Congress-era Indian nationalism, and also sympathizes with the Kashmiri people, as a minority ethnic myself, I don't even know what I am to say. From my perspective, I would recognize it to be somewhere between occupation and second-class citizenship treatment in the sense that some people want complete independence, while to some, they may see a benefit to the union of states of India. About the charges on terrorism and extremism, that's complete bullshit, at least from my view - I see them as people who have been hurt for almost eight decades.

A someone who is in full support of the views of the anti-partition communist faction who were opposed to the Hindu Mahasabha and the All-India Muslim League's idea of dividing India and Pakistan, I see re-unification and strong decentralization of power to states of India, and invalidation of two-nation theory by the Imperial British as the possible way for resolution. The re-unification of states under communists and fellow leftists would ensure that the political dynasts with their vested interests will be disposed of, and that people get the right to self-determination, at least on a national level. I'm also not well-read on leftist ideologies, so I'll not answer more, as the policies I've suggested are probably crass.