It is slowly dawning on Narendra Modi and his cohorts what grave implications his callous and ruthless and majoritarian-prompted move would have on the simmering freedom movement in the Jammu and Kashmir. Maybe, he did not have an idea of the anger and anguish it would trigger among the democrats, secularists, leftists and moderates in the length and breadth of the country in general and the leadership of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in particular. The intensity of this anger in the highly militarized and totally shut down region would be known after the relaxation of curfew and the restoration of communication means in the territory. We may recall the special status of the Jammu and Kashmir is enshrined in the article 370 of the Constitution of the Union of India as also consented and affirmed by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir which was dissolved as far back as 1957 after the adoption of the Constitution of the territory. The permanence of the article 370 was guaranteed by this constitutional affirmation by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. Narendra Modi may not oblivious to the anger and anguish of the Kashmiri leaders and the people. As a preemptive measure, he chose to address his nation on August 9, though he was expected to speak about this extraordinary move on the Independence Day on 15 August. His speeches focused on the estranged leaders and the people of Jammu and Kashmir highlighting the political and economic advantages that would accrue from the revocation of the special status of the region He painted a rosy picture of what his restructuring of the region would result in: thousands of jobs, enhancement of revenues from tourism, better delivery of services, eradication of militancy and terrorism, peace and development, regular elections and representative governance. He accused Pakistan of exploiting the situation in the Jammu and Kashmir since 1947. He admitted that since 1990s to this day some 40,000 people have lost their lives. His apprehensions for further deterioration of the situation in the valley were reflected by his faint indication that the region would not remain a Union territory if peace and security were restored. This reflects what his regime would try to do in the aftermath of the revocation of 35-A and the constitutional article of 370. In his view, the dangling of carrots or pledges for political crumbs would assuage the pain inflicted on the people of Jammu and Kashmir when he, in actual fact, intended to unleash the real estate tycoons, land grabbers, job seekers, traders, Hindu fanatics to take residence in the valley systematically turning the Muslims into a minority. The country at large is already being saffronized rapidly. The process has triggered an unprecedented communal hatred against the hapless Muslims who have been living a subdued life in fear and insecurity since this communal monster has come into power riding over the tide of Hindu nationalism. We should aim at denying the opportunity to the Indians to sell to the world the nontoxicity of their deceitful move, as Kelemens Metternich, on another occasion, had warned that ‘order arose not so much from the pursuit of national interest as from the ability to connect it with that of other states They are not safe in any city and at any place. Swirling on social media are graphic videos showing the brutal beatings and hacking of Muslim men and women. The unruly and sadist contingents of young RSS members roam the streets freely and harass Muslim men and women. The bearded Muslims -young and old – bear the brunt of this religious bigotry. Now, they openly say that they would have Kashmiri girls. What I fear is there would be a repeat of the gruesome killings, rape, arson and plunder of 1947. Omar Farooq Abdullah has rightly said they are hauled up for a long struggle to face the bayonets of the Indian security forces. Pakistan now should not feel bound by any previous treaty, pact and understanding. We are back in the extraordinary situation of 1947 and, therefore, should review our status quo-driven stand and our clichéd statements on the Jammu and Kashmir. It is no more a bilateral dispute between Pakistan and India. Now, it is more a question of the self-determination of over 8 million Kashmiris and blatant violation of human rights than a territorial dispute. The world is more sensitive to human rights violations. We should redraw the paradigms of our Kashmir policy making the question of the self-determination of the Kashmiri people and the blatant violation of their rights as its main and steadfast plank. Where we have an unbridgeable political divide, there should at least be a steadfast foreign policy to bring home our point of view in the capitals of the major powers. Echoing in my memory are the famous words of the maestro of the modern diplomacy, Kelemens Metternich, the Foreign Minister of Prussia, telling his nation that where everything is tottering, it is above all necessary that something, no matter what, remains steadfastso that the lost can find a connection and the strayed a refuge. Let us have a brainstorming and evolve a foreign and security policy which we can pursue steadfastly in the emerging extraordinary situation. Narendra Modi and his shrewd Foreign Minister, Dr. Jaishankar would base their post-curfew narrative on the restructuring of Jammu and Kashmir as an “internal readjustment plan in the backdrop of the failure of the earlier arrangement and its exploitation by Pakistan to fuel insurgency by induction of militants across the border’ aimed purely at achieving peace and development, and denying Pakistan an opportunity to promote terrorism in the valley. Some unlettered Ambassadors have already acquiesced in this narrative. Our narrative should be strong and convincing enough to shredder the credibility of the Indian narrative into smithereens. We should aim at denying the opportunity to the Indians to sell to the world the nontoxicity of their deceitful move, as Kelemens Metternich, on another occasion, had warned that ‘order arose not so much from the pursuit of national interest as from the ability to connect it with that of other states. The thrust of our efforts should be to disallow the Indian narrative whatever it may be to find compatibility with the policies of other states. The writer was a member of the Foreign Service of Pakistan and he has authored two books