Why isn't Kashmir about democratic rights or Kashmiri sovereignty but just about military superiority

Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah called on the President on 20th August and declared in front of the whole media that 'Kashmir unrest is a political issue [news link]. Given that his political opponent Ms. Mufti is the current chief minister and has very viciously managed to play her 'separatist' politics while teaming with the 'nationalist' BJP might definitely have irked him.

The Abdullah's (Omar and his father Farookh), while have been as political but have never been able to do what Mufti has achieved. When the Senior Abdullah was in alliance with NDA-I led by Atal Behari Vajpayi, his stand on Kashmir's 'separation' had softened a lot; same as Omar's position while he was in a 'loose understanding' with the UPA-II led by the Congress. To be fair, the Abdullah's have been consistent with the Indira-Sheikh accord in their stance; the accord was agreed by Sheikh Abdullah's, Farookh's father and Omar's grandfather.

Why is Kashmir important to Pakistan and China http://kiranasis.blogspot.in/2016/09/if-india-has-to-hit-terror-factories-in.html?m=1

why I feel Kashmir is an integral part of India. Kashmir is India's neck - there is a dialogue by the character Major Shabaz Hamdani in Lakshya, he says - वो देख श्रीनगर लेह हाईवे, ये हिन्दुस्तान की गर्दन है, एक बार इसे पकड लिया तो आज कश्मीर, कल दिल्ली | This statement is true metaphorically but for the whole of Kashmir. It is too strategically important for our security and hence freedom from a lot of risks that sit on the other side of Himalayas (the Oriental friends cum foes of ours). Without Kashmir in our control we risk loosing our sovereignty and our very existence as a democracy! At no cost, Indian lives, Pakistani lives or if they were a different nation Kashmiri lives - can you and me afford to lose Kashmir as a piece of land else our peaceful browsing of Facebook sitting in our cosy Mumbai homes will be threatened. Why did America bomb Afghanistan? There was no oil (like Iraq) there? Simply because Taliban threatened America's foundation - Kashmir means the same to India. You may find it crude and may be un-human, but that's the truth. And for me at least, anything that threatens the sovereignty and unity of this country is an enemy of my own existence.

If J&K is so strategically important (fact), is it not all the more important to ensure that they do not demand azadi and not create a ruckus which attracts international media ?
I will not await the day when Kashmir is taken by someone elsr and our Army is busy fending off armies all around Delhi - but rather support all efforts which mean that this strategically important piece of land remains in control of the Indian Armed forces. Also, its no more in our hands that Kashmiris do not demand 'freedom' because that became international problem ever since our neighbour walked into that land in 1948 while our leadership in Delhi was caught napping. Control of that land by Indian Armed forces doesn't mean we use armed forces on civilians. All land in India is under control of the Army through its Supreme Commander the President of India. Please understand the difference between control and use of force. Think of the matter with the Indian constitution mind without bringing emotion into it.
Why Use force in Kashmir on civilians? I have stated the reason why we can't let go of Kashmir, why no plebiscite can ever solve this problem because the root of the issue is not about the will of Kashmiris, it is the militarily strategic importance of that part of land. Now if people of Kashmir do not agree to being with India, while there is a better way to handle the menace - but as a knee jerk reaction, use of force will happen. This is collateral damage and lets be realistic about it than sulk at the altar of human rights. I am just urging you to look at facts - the fact that Kashmir is a military problem being exploited politically by our neighbour and some elements within the Valley itself! We need to separate politics from military strategy here and look at it dispassionately. And let me again reiterate, the military strategy is important because otherwise it risks our very own sovereignty - you can't separate the two issues here unfortunately!
  we should avoid collateral damage as it gets all the more attention(negative) which actually weakens us. So without getting into Human rights issues... Military force is a blunder and not a solution
Kashmir is NOT the political problem it is made out to be - it has little to do with the will of people or the actual need for freedom or equity (if it indeed was, then the rights of Kashmiri Pandits would have to be considered by all govts which hasn't happened in 6 decades - irrespective of Congress or BJP govt at center). All the politics is a facade - from both sides if the border and from within - to shield the actual issue at hand which is that this is a military problem. If Kashmir was indeed a political problem, why did Pakistan need to infiltrate it in 1948? The state would have simmered even without their intervention in '48? Hence my conclusion is that just like Libya or Lebanon, Kashmir will keep burning until the three Armies (India, Pakistan, China) either declare truce or fight it out to end. There is no way a plebiscite or a 'free and fair' election in Kashmir can solve this problem! No way! Sad but true.

Thanks to Aashiruddin Shahnawaz for parking this discussion on Facebook