PM Modi, you may pat yourself on the back and think that you have outsmarted the world! But remember that there is many a slip between the cup and the lip – especially in a complex, globalized, interdependent world with 24/7 visibility of all that you have done and said. The future may have surprises for you. Your recent abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A – that maintained Jammu and Kashmir’s (J&K) relative autonomy – has truly put the cat amongst the pigeons! The previous op-ed discussed at length, the tell-tale signs that were missed by the policy making elite – especially in Pakistan. But you might have gotten the region to the precipice of disaster on your own! But that is Modi’s doing. Though his ill-fated adventure may still extract a heavy price from him, Pakistan must do its own stock taking. The next big question to ask of this development is, what follies got Pakistan to a stage where policy options have become so limited? The answer: there have been quite a few! Consider. Foremost is the focus on rhetoric at the cost of capability development. In the last half-a-century, many empty slogans were crafted in support of the Muslims in J&K. All of this to only whip up an emotional response from the masses. It is sad to see and say that these empty slogans were just that – empty! Behind the rhetoric which is devoid of concrete plans only lies insecurity! That is exactly what has happened to Pakistan’s Kashmir cause. One government stalwart has even ventured that many ‘Pakistans’ will be created in J&K. Talk about idiotic diction! While a nation can be motivated by being called great repeatedly, it can’t become truly great without being backed by a suitable national security framework – investigated exhaustively in prior op-eds. Especially – when it comes to J&K – because the Kashmir cause was never set within the context of Pakistan’s national interests. In-fact, national interests were never clearly defined in the first place! In parliamentary democracy, special committees are setup to focus on core issues facing the nation. These bodies are not only meant to serve their originating purpose but also to achieve their stated aims. Successive Pakistani Governments have done well to at-least create and sustain a Parliamentary Committee on Kashmir but that is where the kudos end! This is because of three reasons. Firstly, there is no policy statement for this Kashmir Committee and even for Pakistan’s Kashmir cause. Recall that earlier op-eds have defined policy as a galvanizing vision of the future end state. Without a stated policy, how can even a committee serve its originating purpose? Though the committee founders have somewhat stated the aims of the committee albeit even these are lukewarm in nature. They range from monitoring atrocities in J&K to mobilising world opinion for self-determination in J&K. Secondly, no timelines or specific milestones have been provided to measure the success or failure of this Kashmir Committee. Without this, only subjective accomplishment can be gauged. Thirdly, political expediency has led to the chairmanship of the Kashmir Committee being used as a bargaining chip to prop up consecutive governments. Unfortunately, this has meant that unsuitable candidates have occupied the chair for longer durations and without much to show for it! The erstwhile Maulana Fazl-ur-Rahman comes to mind who has chaired this committee for over 10 years! Successive Pakistani Governments have done well to at-least create and sustain a Parliamentary Committee on Kashmir but that is where the kudos end! The worldwide contextualising of the J&K issue – or lack thereof – has also contributed in limiting further policy options. Since 1948, the J&K issue was recognised as an international dispute via United Nations Security Council’s resolutions 39 and 47. The latter requiring a three-step approach to resolution including Pakistani troop withdrawal, reduction of Indian forces and an impartial plebiscite in J&K and the last two actions still outstanding! Though, the plebiscite now being only a fig-leaf. The scenario actually worsened when, in 1972 Pakistan quietly agreed to change the dimensions of the J&K dispute from multilateral to bilateral. This was done through the Shimla Agreement and this one act allowed the world to put this issue on the back burner, so much so that the UN only took notice again in August 2019 after many decades! In parallel, the Pakistani foreign policy moved J&K away from being the core issue to one of a number of issues in a composite dialogue. Pakistani establishment also failed to appreciate moderate Kashmiri leadership. Instead, it pinned its hopes on the hardcore elements within the Kashmiri struggle. This turned out mostly to be a lost cause. It would have been more appropriate to wean moderates away from their pro-India stance in the interest of the strategic nature of this dispute. Suffice to say that it is seemingly obvious that policy makers bet on the wrong horse. Having previously mentioned the blunders that have led to this sorry and critical juncture in the saga of the J&K valley, there needs to be a mention of a possible silver lining. This has four dimensions. One, the abrogation of Article 37 and 35A doesn’t exactly change the nature of the J&K dispute. It is still on the UNSC roaster and the body has recently picked it up again. Two, India will have to lift the on-going curfew one day and that will likely lead to a very strong & indigenous response in the form of Intifada-3. Three, the Indian government will need to use Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti as interlocutors. Hence the reason for Pakistan to appreciate moderate Kashmiri leadership. Four, in the longer run – if the unrest in J&K doesn’t subside – it can further suck in the Indian state and defence machinery. But unfortunately, no matter how one cuts it, follies at a policy level have come back to haunt the powers to be in Pakistan. However – owing to the silver lining – there is still room to manoeuvre and the recent endeavour to highlight the humanitarian crisis in J&K is a good step in the right direction. Nonetheless, more must be done! The writer is Director Programmes for an international ICT organization based in the UK and writes on corporate strategy, socio-economic and geopolitical issues