Let me come straight to the point.
This is not the 1st time when governor became head of state and laws were passed in Kashmir. Since independence a number of laws were passed like that and supreme court in the past has upheld that this way is constitutional. So what happened is technically perfectly legal.
Now coming to discuss about the will of Kashmiris, this you will never know until a plebiscite is conducted. Which would never happen as India cant conduct it on pok. It’s too late as Kashmiri pandits were displaced. Etc.
India cant afford to ignore the Kashmir conflict. It lost aksai chin to China and did anyone ask what the kashmiris wanted at that time. The point is if tomorrow India loses Kashmir in a war with China and Pakistan will you be saying its unconstitutional. India has to protect its sovereignty from China and pakistan and cant allow a small region like Kashmir to decide Indias fate. Any land in this world was never independent ever. Every land was occupied by outsiders and countries were formed. So if u say its unconstitutional then what moguls did was wrong. What rulers before them did was wrong. What Patel did was wrong. Did newly independent India ask the +500 small kings what they want? Instead by force or threat or lack of choice they were absorbed. Dont u think that those kings would like to be free rather than joining another country like India? Who doesnt like freedom. The voices which didnt raise at that time why now?. So these voices need to know the pattern in history. The point is aggression is the natural foreign policy of any state in the world including India. This is how it happened always. It’s a hope for betterment. when 70 years couldn’t resolve the conflict then may be this move might develop the place like any other place in India.