With heightened tempers, jingoistic slogans and warmongering on TV screens of the usually angry neighbours, my thesis gets its usual endorsement. The Brits were driven away from the subcontinent because their occupation was illegal, immoral and, above all, it deprived many of their basic right of existence. The bright minds of that time came up with a not-so-bright solution by drawing a wedge in the mysterious land of India. The price of that dignity has been so steep, so horrendous and so bloody that one often wonders, freedom from what? Thousands of Kashmiris with cries and mourning, blinded eyes and fractured bodies look toward the conscience of the world, if there is any such thing. Very sadly, they see no hope. Our elected prime minister delivered a carefully crafted speech at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly and brought the case of Kashmiris to the eyes and ears of the world. Had the prime minister read the text of the UN Resolution 47 dated April 21, 1948, he would have realised that it is sequential and conditional. I encourage the readers to Google it as well for their reference. It would make everything crystal clear to many why the neighbours would prefer the status quo. Without delving into the history, the events and the subsequent fiascos that led us to this point, it is time to think clearly and with cooler heads. This region’s peace and stability is dependent on leaders who see things beyond their stiff necks and over inflated egos. For the last seven decades or so, millions have lost their lives at the partition and in the wars and confrontations that followed. The anger and bitter acrimony overrides the senses of leaders and the general public. Both sides tend to act like juveniles trading barbs and threats. The prime minister of India, in his recent address on India’s Independence Day, thanked his well-wishers from Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. Our side should have ignored the comment, but the idiot box used it as a ‘smoking gun’ of his involvement in our territory. Not to mention the lone spy, Kulbhushan Yadav, who has been used by all and sundry to build a rather questionable case against the neighbours. There were resolutions passed in the assemblies and demonstrations were carried out, but does it matter to Mr Modi or India? The fact is that each side pursues information about the other through the likes of many Yadavs. This is pretty much a standard operating procedure between hostile neighbours. If I recall, in one of Mr Modi’s prior speeches he had expressed his desire to see Kashmiri youth trading their arms for laptops. Someone ought to remind the respected prime minister that in order to use those laptops, the youth of Kashmir would need a pair of eyes full of sight as well. Violence breeds more violence and fans more resistance and reprisals. In the end, whoever has the might gets to prevail but at the expense of many dead bodies. With increasing fatalities in Kashmir, the stance of Mr Modi towards Balochistan and other Pakistani territories is merely a political maneuver. This is simply meant to deflect the attention from the atrocities of Kashmir. Even the saner elements of Indian media have expressed their serious concerns towards human rights violations in the valley. Speaking of violence, the recent Uri incident that has escalated tensions between the quarrelling neighbours is highly condemnable. The idiots on both sides who are simulating war scenarios on TV screens ought to get their heads examined as another war and loss of more lives would be truly atrocious. I was shocked to hear an otherwise sensible and a very senior analyst on this side, famous for his ‘birdie’, illustrating a scenario to his able sidekick. According to his rather simplistic build-up, if the Indian troops head into our deserts, there is a possibility that our side may use a “tactical weapon.” We all know what tactical really means here. As if that is a firecracker. My experience is zero when it comes to war strategies, but why would ground troops march in to be greeted by such a weapon? Why would the other side not use that tactical weapon first, and cause serious damage to the entire region? Not to mention our illustrious defence minister who gave the impression that we would do “whatever it takes” to defend ourselves. The critics of Mr Modi who rejected the false parallel between Kashmir and Balochistan ought to take a course in tactics and strategies. Whether the situation is analogous or not there is a situation. This cannot be denied. There are disappearances, and there are extrajudicial killings that hit the news wires every now and then, and on social media on a frequent basis. One can sincerely hope and pray that this bloodshed, whether it is in the Valley or the disappearances here, come to an end. I have expressed this opinion in the past on this platform and on others: the solution is not further division but greater autonomy on both sides. It will only come by talks and cessation of hostilities. Emotions aside, a very cold and brutally honest fact. Independence in the shadow of a hostile neighbour has such a hefty and endless cost that it does not outweigh the perceived benefit. The writer is a Pakistani-US mortgage banker. He can be reached at dasghar@aol.com. He tweets at http://twitter.com/dasghar