This just resembles a coup. The people of Kashmir are unable to voice their opinions.
When the US President declares a federal emergency in a certain part of the country that part does not get veto rights over the decision.
Now, I don't know if the actual revocation of the law in question was done legally, (although further down some 'constitutional expert' says it's completely legal and no one appears to be claiming otherwise) but assuming it was, this is nothing like a coup and is in fact the cornerstone of a federal democracy where certain powers are provided to the federal government, which are based on the will of the entire country rather than just a state or province.
To expand; India has the concept of "Union Territories" where the some matters like law and order (and others, I'm not an expert) which are usually State matters are controlled by the Central (Federal) government;
What's been done here is the effective equivalent of taking any already well-established state (say Maharashtra) with an elected legislature and converting it into a Union Territory; thereby stripping the State of a lot of power.
Wikipedia says Article 35A "was added to the Constitution through a Presidential Order" [1] via powers granted by Article 370 [2].
I am unfamiliar with the Indian Constitution. But 370(3) gives the President the unilateral right to "by public notification, declare that [Article 370] shall cease to be operative" pending only "the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State" [2]. (Recommendation, not consent.)
There is no requirement for mutual agreement. Article 370, and thus 35A, are wholly executive prerogatives.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_35A_of_the_Constitutio...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitutio...
But I don't believe any recommendation from the Constituent Assembly was received to the best of my knowledge.
The Constituent Assembly provided its recommendation in the 1950s [1]. (I think this is where Article 35A came from.) The Assembly doesn't appear to have convened since 1954. It thus makes sense to interpret the recommendation requirement in 370(3) as a prohibition on the Indian President cancelling Article 370 before the Assembly had a chance to make its circa 1954 recommendations.
(Surprisingly, one of those changes was not a mutuality requirement on termination of the Article.)
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_Jammu_...
If so, that would explain why no one in that article is complaining about the legality of the move.
Alternatively, it resembles a conflict zone with a history of intercommunal violence, and armed conflict involving three countries. Which it is, actually.