I came upon an article by Michael Deibert on the Kashmir situation in India/Pakistan. Deibert tries to keep an even eye. However, his lack of specific examples of terrorist attacks in the late-80s, early-90s that perhaps lead to Indian Police excesses that he details suggests either a lack of information or some sympathy for Kashmiri militants. Also, in my recollection, the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) was initially a terrorist organization; of late, it has turned away from its militant ways, and has fallen out of favor with Pakistan over the JKLF's support for an independent Kashmir.
I would not disagree with much of what Deibert writes; undoubtedly, there have been egregious abuses of power by Indian police authorities in Kashmir. One reason why there has been no plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir is the presence of Pakistan-supported militants; also, Pakistani military occupies Pakistan-administered Kashmir while Indian military/police occupy Indian-administered Kashmir. Thus, a free and fair referendum on accession to either India or Pakistan, or even Kashmiri independence, seems unlikely.
A few years back while informally discussing politics at school, another Indian student objected strongly to my use of the terms "Indian-administered Kashmir" and "Pakistan-administered Kashmir." But that, in my opinion, reflects reality - after all, Kashmiris did not accede to Kashmir becoming a part of the Indian Union (the Hindu ruler of J&K signed an accession treaty with India); nor do they seem happy to join Pakistan. Then again, the Kashmir situation has colored Indo-Pak relations for over 50 years, and religious fanaticism has lately been on the rise in both Hindu-dominated India and Islamic Pakistan. Rational discussion can hardly be expected either side of the border, and strong emotions are the order of the day.