The unity among the states in South Asia is marked by the creation of a narrative fabric of relations based on economic interests. The myth of a unified national image, based on shared faith, in South Asia in general and in Pakistan, in particular, is disrupted by visible ironies of reality. Division for unity is a popular tactic among the state players as they play politics as a game as well as an economic deal. The utopia of a unified state has always been so appealing to the masses as it has led to mass sacrifices; enduring traumas and sufferings in the history of the world. Conferring the top UAE honour on Modi, especially at the time when the division of Kashmir by his government has swept away its autonomy through the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution, in the name of the upswing of economic activity in the region, has added a new angle to see how the bases of the formation of political relations among the countries rest on trade and economic ties. In the absence of well-planned policies, Kashmir, generally known as a paradise, has turned into a metaphor of utopia, which hinges on the hopes of humanity, rights, brotherhood, prosperity and unity, all good words of a dream world, amid the prevailing economic interest, political ego, impending doom of war and insecure borders. The watchdogs of “Eden” have always been committing acts to bring a radical change in the society; sharing the potential of benefits this region offers to validate their power and hold. However, in the ironical reality of lockdown and curfew, which has been interpreted as “marshal law” by international media challenges, the ideal unity is claimed based on good governance as well as equality. The unity among the states in South Asia is marked by the creation of a narrative fabric of relations between the countries based on economic interests, which redefine the idea of unity. Therefore, the ideological relation of unity is projected for political possibilities and for representing operational strategies to form political intervention. In this age, when an economy sets rules for a diplomatic and political settlement, how is it possible for a country, with poor economic growth, to influence other countries to take steps for relief from oppression in Kashmir on humanitarian stay? In the absence of well-planned policies, Kashmir, generally known as a paradise, has turned into a metaphor of utopia, which hinges on the hopes of humanity, rights, brotherhood, prosperity and unity, all good words of a dream world, amid the prevailing economic interest, political ego, impending doom of war and insecure borders The UAE’s highest civil award given to Modi has questioned the base of solidarity, which has disregarded human rights and favoured strategic ties with India. It is also in the air that India has confirmed, in a secret deal, the Kashmir issue with China and the borders of Aksai Chin, the region over which Sino-Indian War was fought in 1962. However, it is beyond any doubt that the ideal unity among the countries largely relies on economic and strategic benefits. The challenge to security in South Asia emerges from the prevalent crisis in the form of extremist ideologies of running politics. If the decision to strip Indian-administered Kashmir of its autonomous status to get it free from “terrorism” leads to the exacerbating of the human rights situation in the region on the one hand and spreads terror across the globe on the other, it is definitely not something that can be termed as a strategy worth relying and implementing upon. Rather, it lays bare the incompetence of the state, which claims to smooth the way of prosperity for Kashmiris by imposing lockdowns and curfew, thereby, deepening the economic, political and humanistic crisis. At the same time, it is facing an internal crisis of communal violence caused by the growing wave of extremism and lynching supported by Hindutva ideology. To invest power in interpreting diplomatic relations and not make any attempt to plan a course of change for the liberation of Kashmir as well as for Kashmiris’ freedom to ensure their right to self-determination, is equal to repeating the history without learning from it. Downgrading diplomatic relations and suspending bilateral trade with India was a possible political reaction in the current situation. It’s not the best measure to reach a political settlement for Kashmir. A short-term plan can be based on devising a mechanism for putting Kashmir crisis before the International Court of Justice and the UN security council on humanistic bases to ensure peace and security in the region. For a long-term resolution policy, it is imperative to develop the sum of interrelations among the countries, which requires the focus on stabilising the economy on national and international level and building strategic ties with other countries not on the ground of shared faith and humanistic values but with the policy of economic integration among the South Asian states. This will ensure economic as well as political security inside and outside the country. However, the policies based on hopes and expectations will never pass the test of time as political relations are more about strategic businesses than a game. The writer is a lecturer in Sargodha University, Sargodha