Why Subramaniam Swamy's analysis of the Kashmir issue is pragmatic

I would encourage the readers of this blog to read this article by Subramaniam Swamy. Despite my fellow blogger Pilid's arguments to the contrary, the article is quite pragmatic and should be used by the Indian Government as a corner stone of its Kashmir policy. Please allow me to elucidate:

• Identification of our foes -

  The ‘Kashmir issue,’ in fact, can no more be solved by dialogue either with the Pakistanis or the Hurriyat, leave alone the constitutional impossibility of allowing it to secede.

• Ability to predict the future of our enemy/neighbor with the most plausible scenario:
  

  The Pakistan army today, according to all informed sources available to me, has a majority of captains and colonels who owe allegiance to the Taliban and Islamist fundamentalism. In another five years, these middle ranks will reach, through normal promotions, the corps commander level. We know that the government in Pakistan has always been controlled by the seven corps commanders of the army. Therefore a Taliban government in Pakistan five years hence seems a highly probable outcome. Jihad, that is, war against India will be the logical consequence of that outcome. 

•  Identifying the result of the scenario and hence putting the secular idiots in their place.
• Giving sane rationale behind why Kashmir should not be parted:

  The population of that State may be majority Muslim but the land and its history is predominantly Hindu. For our commitment to the survival of the ancient civilisation of India and the composite culture that secularists talk of, we have not only to win that coming inevitable war but also resolve never to part with Kashmir.

There are additional arguments beyond the ones I've noted which bolster the argument of why India should not negotiate with such SOB's and prepare for punitive action.
To my friend Pilid's points,

bereft of popular support, no government, whatever its ideals, can survive forever except by
brute force, an option that should be reserved for the end.

For about 40 years after Independence Kashmiris lived in peace within India, there were no large scale incidents. However after 1990 when Bhutto came into power the troubles started with the militancy and the infiltration. How did the common public suddenly decide to join the forces of Islamic fascism? Where did this new found Independent Kashmir concept come about? The problem with this issue is, politicians and media forget historic facts and the legality of the Instrument of Accession.
The government lacks strong leadership who understand the issues and its ramifications and are able to tell Pakistan and the Hurriyat to shut the f-up, jail the people who create trouble for treason and hit the militants hard. But the Congress like Nero would rather fiddle away while Kashmir burns, is a sad irony considering Nehru who gave the state so much.