All rumours spread through planted news items published on both sides of cease fire line and on social media, that India had succeeded to force the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to scrap the publication of the “Update of the Situation of Human Rights in Indian-Administered Kashmir and Pakistan-Administered Kashmir from May 2018 to April 2019” and that Human Rights Council had agreed not to make any reference to Kashmir for next three years, died their natural death when the 8 July report was presented to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva at its 41st session. After the first two day visit of UN Secretary General to Srinagar in March 1956, UN June 14, 2018 and July 8, 2019 reports on Jammu and Kashmir are two leaps steps in the world interest in Kashmir. It does not happen on its own. The leading NGOs in special consultative status with the UN have been facilitating Kashmiris to attend the Human Rights Council sessions, make oral interventions, arrange parallel events, lobby and submit written statements to the UN Secretary General, for release as UN GA documents as reference documents during the Council sessions. Azad Kashmir delegation has been making assiduous efforts and Altaf Hussain Wani a post-graduate from the University of Kashmir, Srinagar has been guiding and leading his team very ably during Council sessions. His services, aggregate input of his team and well-wishers deserve an acknowledgement. There is another school of Kashmiri opinion active at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. It remains locked on Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. This second school of Kashmiris at the UN Human Rights Council, does not address the situation as understood by the UN in its June 14, 2018 or July 8, 2019 report, which “highlights serious human rights violations and patterns of impunity in Indian-Administered Kashmir and significant human rights concerns witnessed in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir.” (Paragraph 181 of July 8, 2019 Report). Unless the second school of Kashmiris operating during the Human Rights Council sessions, is prepared to consider the difference between “serious human rights violations and patterns of impunity in Indian-Administered Kashmir and significant human rights concerns witnessed in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir,” their approach would continue to be looked at with less favour. This school has to correct itself. Government of Pakistan addressed in the report should make efforts to engage with this school and argue with them. The first school should not take an adversarial stand against the other, but engage with them and find a common ground. They also need to improve upon and remain inclusive all along. It is against the spirit of present circumstances and realities, that Kashmiris should be seen pitched against each other. July 8, 2019 report is a neutral guide for Government of Pakistan, Government of Azad Kashmir (also Government of India and Government of Jammu and Kashmir) and these two Kashmiri opinions operating at the UN HRC in Geneva. The report has defined Indian-Administered Kashmir as consisting of the Kashmir valley, the Jammu and Ladakh regions and Pakistan Administered Kashmir as comprising the “two administrative regions: Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B). The report has qualified the manner of its interest as ‘serious’ in India and as ‘significant’ in Pakistan. In Pakistan-Administered Kashmir the human rights violations are far distinct from violations in Indian-Administered Kashmir. These have been described as of ‘structural and legal’ nature. People of Indian administered Kashmir have been disenfranchised. Government of India played foul with the elected leadership of Kashmir and engineered a dissolution of the Assembly in June 2018. Governor’s office fax was deliberately switched off on 21 November 2018, so that Mehbooba mufti could not serve the notice of her ability for formation of a Government in alliance with national Conference and Congress to the Governor. Delhi has perfected its master plan of deceits in its administered part of Kashmir. Human Rights defenders confronting each other at the UN HRC in Geneva, should keep the merits of their dissension. In particular the school that has chosen to focus on Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan should consider the qualifications made in the Report The two Kashmiri schools confronting each other at the UN Human Rights Council, have a common duty, that is, to remain on the side of the promotion and protection of human rights. Degenerating into any kind of a bias or propaganda, that too, if it were disproportionate and far remote from the truth is unhelpful. Indian Government and its machinery has been indicted in the update of 8 July 2019 by the UN. We find that people in the Indian administered Kashmir were disenfranchised for a purpose. Indian Government wanted to use the Governors rule and now the Presidents rule directly from Delhi to push through some laws, which an elected legislature would have debated and refused. Indian Government does seem to have many plans, in particular, the plan to tamper with laws to allow a change in the demography is dangerous. The most sinister thing that has been highlighted (missed out by all Kashmiris) in the 8 July 2019 UN report is the amendment made through Governor’s order in the Section 10 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. Section 10 of the PSA reads, “Any person in respect of whom a detention order has been made under Section 8 shall be liable to detained at such place” which the government may decide “provided the detainees who are permanent residents of the state” are not lodged in jails outside the state. After “In exercise of the powers vested under proclamation No P-1/18 of 2018 dated 20 June, the governor is pleased to enact the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Amendment Act 2018, and it shall come into force at once, “the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir have lost this protection and are now lodged outside the State in various prisons of India. Soon after dissolution of the Assembly Governor Vohra issued the new law on 13 July, 2018. The orders of detention are issued by the deputy commissioners rather than the courts and despite the high court revoking the PSA orders in the case of many prisoners, they are being again booked under the Act through an “administrative order”. The detention under PSA is renewed with a new administrative order after every release by the Court. That is why Musarat Alam has been slapped with 37 PSA detention orders so far. Human Rights defenders confronting each other at the UN HRC in Geneva, should keep the merits of their dissension. In particular the school that has chosen to focus on Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan should consider the qualifications made in the Report. From Para 89 of the UN updated report we find that even the Kashmiri Government based at Srinagar has betrayed its own people and has violated the oath of doing ‘good to all manner of people’. It has been revealed that “while the PSA Advisory Board confirmed almost 99 percent of the detention orders, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court reversed over 81 percent of these detention orders. In May 2018, the State Government further diluted the checks and balances in the application of the PSA by removing the need to consult Jammu and Kashmir High Court Chief Justice while constituting the Advisory Board”. Mehbooba Mufti headed thealliance Government in May 2018. She resigned on 19 June 2018. Mehbooba Mufti should be asked by all schools of opinion about “removing the need to consult Jammu and Kashmir High Court Chief Justice while constituting the Advisory Board.” A committee of elders should summon her and question her and members of her cabinet. She has acted against the Kashmiri traditions and remains an accomplice in the use of PSA, which has caused indignity and suffering. Government of India or the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, do not deserve any let off for disenfranchising the people of Indian-Administered Kashmir. We should remain on the side of the people. It is our duty to support the one recommendation made to the Human Rights Council and 19 recommendations made to Government of India and 10 recommendations made to Government of Pakistan in the report. We need to examine that the draft report was sent to Government of India and Government of Pakistan on 12 June 2019 to “provide any factual comments by 17 June”. Was this duty diligently carried out by the Foreign Office of the Government of Pakistan? If so, why does the report address the Indian-Administered Kashmir as “Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir” 8 times in paragraphs 4, 6, 9, 18, 46, 52, 70 and 132? The writer is President of London based Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations