This was a very controversial and shady decision.
While legally the conditions were met, according to the Supreme Court, I understood it was only possible because there was no elected government in Kashmir at that moment, and it has been put under direct supervision of the central government. But correct me if I misremembered or misinterpreted of course.
Legally it was defensible. That's what matters. Was it controversial? Sure.
But India has several "union territories". Kashmir is not unique.
On the other hand, citizens of Jammu and Ladakh were overjoyed, so there lots of people who supported it.
Now Kashmir is getting tons of investment. They'll be spending nearly a billion dollars on building metros in Srinagar. Such progress would not have been possible under the old regime.
