As it stands now, we can go round and round on Kashmir and nothing would come out of our discussions. With issues like this nothing really happens even when it appears to be happening. One of the biggest problems with Kashmir is that the status quo that has to change for any possibility of solution to exist has taken a form in itself, and it is a breathing, living entity. Both Pakistan and India are so fearful of losing whatever they have in the current scheme of things that they are not really interested in changing the state of affairs. While they can still conveniently claim the entire region, definition of which are also not clear, it is highly unlikely that in the near future any of the two parties will try to seriously alter the situation for the benefit of the people, or peoples — to be demographically correct — of Kashmir on the both sides of the Line of Control. So why is there a need for another article that won’t change anything? Simply because a paramilitary force is spraying pellets on unarmed protesters can be a good enough reason, but much has been said and written about that in the last few weeks. The recent elections in the Pakistani-administered Kashmir can be another reason, but it is no secret that historically, the party in power in Islamabad carries the election in Muzaffarabad as well. The fact that it has happened this time around as well should not really surprise us. Interestingly, however, we have an unexpected nomination from the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) for the post of the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), and that merits some consideration. By having a seasoned diplomat in an office whose job description includes ensuring that nothing is done to affect the prime time news cycle is indeed an interesting proposition. The person that he is, the former ambassador to Beijing and Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, may still find some work to keep him busy in this job, and we might see him more than all of the previous presidents and prime Ministers of the AJK combined. Masood Khan has had a long and illustrious career in the foreign service of Pakistan, and has served with distinction in many important capitals of the world. But has he, over the years, developed enough rapport to alter the situation even a tiny bit on an issue as complex as Kashmir? Not really, one would assume. Still, it is a great talking point, one that can serve the prime minster well in his interactions with the international community. Nawaz Sharif, now that he has appointed Khan, should tell anyone and everyone in the world who matters and who cares to listen that while Narendra Modi has turned his eyes the other way, and Modi’s army, paramilitary and police are involved in atrocities against stone-pelting people in Kashmir, Pakistan has appointed a well-respected, apolitical son of the soil to preside over the part of the state that is free. And who knows this might generate some goodwill, some concern, some interest in some part of the world, which might lead to some pressure on Delhi. And who knows when Modi turns up in Islamabad to attend the SAARC summit in a few months time we may have another go on the comprehensive/composite/whatever dialogue process there is, and start talking on Kashmir once again. This can work. Even if it doesn’t, it deserves a try. Pakistan needs to revive its Kashmir policy and be proactive. This current stalemate will hurt us in the future. Many have argued in the past as well that the status quo suits India more, and we are actually playing into the hands of India by waiting for some miracle to happen. Under no circumstance should we tone down our support of the freedom struggle in the occupied Kashmir. We also need to realistically assess the situation on the ground. India is a big emerging market, and the world is drooling over the prospects of doing business with India. This will increasingly create commercial stakes of the major powers in India, and we will have problems asking them to push India to any form of settlement. Furthermore, as the occupation has been going on for many decades now, we have had generations of Kashmiris that have grown without tangible connections with Pakistan. Emotions and sentiments aside, the valley has been economically dependent on India since partition. Successive Indian administrations have, over the years, developed comprehensive road and railway networks that connect most of the cities in the valley, and elsewhere in the occupied territory, with mainland India, and therefore, whatever business or commercial activity that takes place in and around Srinagar is courtesy the occupying power. While India can use it to tame the supporters of the freedom fighters, it can also use it to bring to Kashmir the dividends of the rising India that is fast becoming the darling of the world. If that ever happens, the fact that areas in Pakistan like Muzaffarabad, Jhelum, Sialkot and Rawalpindi used to provide a natural trading route to the valley will become the thing of the past. We might not be able to reverse that, if that ever happens. The people of the erstwhile subcontinent will be celebrating yet another independence day(s) this week, but in Kashmir, and in so many other parts across Pakistan and India, many would be forced to question the very essence of liberty and freedom that was promised to them. Both Pakistan and India and their people are responsible for the on going bloodbath in Kashmir. We all assume that Kashmir is a piece of land that God Himself promised to us. Have we, as people, ever cared for the people of Kashmir who are, for all practical purposes, still under the curse of colonisation? How many more hollow independence days will we allow our governments before they can actually do something for the people we all claim to be our own? I cannot speak for Indians but is Pakistan ready to make this resolve this independence day that while discussing Kashmir they will think about Kashmiris first? The writer is a graduate of LUMS and currently serves as an MPA of Punjab. She tweets at @hinaparvezbutt