The month of February was always a politically and socially charged one for Pakistanis — especially for us, the inhabitants of the lively, buzzing city of Gardens, Lahore. The zeal and fervor with which the Lahoris (mostly liberals)celebrated their most awaited and probably the only social festival of the year, “Basant”, and the political ambition and purpose with which political enthusiasts like those hailing from outfits such as theJamaat-e-Islami celebrated the solidarity day with Kashmir made this month the charged one. However, as the event that most liberals — calling for more social and political liberty — cherished, has been inconsiderately discarded. It’s about time, if not entirely abandon, we rationalise the other too, providing increased political and social space for other causes that are either internal or more relevant to the socio-political discourse of Pakistan. To put things into perspective, Kashmir has been the cornerstone of Pakistan’s foreign policy since the country’s inception in 1947. Despite many attempts to free the allegedly marginalised and oppressed masses of Kashmir, believed generally to be mostly Muslims, neither has the fate of the Kashmiris changed nor is there any positivity found even within the Pakistani ranks that the freedom cause of Kashmir will ever be successful. This pessimism continues to appeal to reason in view of India’s growing military strength, its hegemony, both political and economicin the region and the way its foreign relations typically those with the US and its allies in the Middle East have grown and established during the last decade or so. While the human sufferings in Kashmir are quite evident, the debate on whether the legal and jurisdictional claims of Pakistan are more valid or India’s ceases to remain a relevant one as the focus after 60 years of infighting needs to be shifted to determination of how this has to be resolved and the human sufferings, visible of which have been used by both sides of the border to create emotive fallacies, must be analyzed to not fixate the blame on either of the parties but to determine who is in a more influential position to bring them to an end. Clearly, when India is already at the helm and any involvement from the Pakistani side is likely to invite a hostile reaction, Pakistan’s claims to the valley, albeit being legal, legitimate and rational (see: plebiscite, UN resolutions, Simla deputation, etc.) could wait. And this ofcourse will not equate to relinquishing the cause of Kashmir, or bowing down infront of India and accepting its hegemony or superiority in the region. It would just mean Pakistan’s compromise for better life outcomes for the Kashmiris and an increased sense of security and protection that the inhabitants of the valley have longed for, for the last six decades. Also, the government of Pakistan can then focus on internal issues that it can exercise jurisdiction and has direct control over. To say that the aspirations of the Kashmiri populace to win their right to self-determination has either been crushed or was non-existent from the very beginning is not entirely accurate.Neither true is the fact that most Kashmiris deny their ethnic or religious similarities to Pakistan or “annexation with Pakistan as the ultimate goal of their freedom struggle”. One must agree that the movement was never non-existent. However, its scale and intensity continue to be misrepresented and misused by particular interest groups, most of them having revisionist goals or specific political designs on both sides of the border. A popular Indian take on the non-existence of the Kashmiri freedom struggle while that ofPakistan’s on how the Kashmiris are butchered in daylight, not provided any rights like those pertaining tomovement, vote and life, and that their lifelong political dream is only to reunite with their brethren in faith residing in Pakistan (a larger number of the same faith resides in India), are usually fabricated and very often politically and economically motivated. I’m certainly against any form and manifestation of oppression, violence and marginalisation of Kashmiris, be it that meted out to the evicted Hindu pundits or the Muslim mujahideen. However, the question that confronts many policy-makers on both sides of the border, especially ones on the Pakistani side, is if the curtailment of marginalisation and oppression would be done so by furthering the contestation in the valley or by letting the current ruling government determine its course without any external interference. One must not deny that there are serious acts of violence, tyranny and oppression committed by the Indian army in the valley. However, they are to be seen because the Indian government doesn’t want to setup a peaceful and compliant regime in the valley is a highly frailand contestable argument. The Indian government is always making efforts to build an international repute of a peaceful and accommodating society that can provide safe and secure investment avenues to international governments and global investors. Amidst this image-building and economic revival process, the last thing the Indian government would want is to commit acts of human rights violations that it is has continued to commit in the valley. Clearly, without Pakistani interference, reciprocation of which hasn’t amounted to anything but misery for the Kashmiri people, the Indian government will be given a fair chance to establish a peaceful and ethnically, socially and religiously co-existing regime in the valley. In consideration of the internal security challenges that Pakistan faces including the several wars its military is currently fighting, and that more than 40,000 people living in the country have lost their lives to extreme forms of violence and terrorism,furthering the cause of Kashmir doesn’t only sound like a politically motivated and ambitious policy but also that the Pakistan government, atleast for now seems quite incapable of providing Kashmiris with the improved lives they aspire; ones that can ensure security and economic prosperity and atleast the most basic denomination of human rights.This is not to say that the Indian government is capable. However, a change of regime in the region would be calling for turmoil and exacerbation of the economic and security situation in the valley, which it can certainly not afford. Also, relevant is that fact that the death toll of non-aligned Kashmiris (nothing to do with the cold war antics) in the last 60 years of the struggle has been trivial. If one looks at the statistics and the war-mongering that has carried on for the last six decades, one will find the slain fighters to be politically or socially aligned with either the Hindu pundits — who claim property and land rights in the valley or the Muslim mujahideen. So, while human sufferings continue, to say that a common peace-loving Kashmiri has been intentionally targeted in the war, especially by the Indian army, would not amount to an honest assessment of events that have taken place in the valley. The Pakistani government needs to re-think its strategy in the valley and feel more responsible to people whose welfare it can influence while also providing an opportunity to its Indian counterpart to become more favourably disposed towards the Kashmiris. It also needs to question whether the so-called freedom struggle is likely to incarcerate the Kashmiris further or does it promise to liberate them. There is obviously a clear answer. The writer is Acting Director at the Shahid Javed Burki Institute of Public Policy and a Lecturer in Lahore. He can be reached on Twitter @AsadAijaz