A video clip of a news channel from Pakistan, quoting a former Foreign Minister and allegedly part of the present Government that “Kashmir issue is dead now” went viral and raised hair on many freshly shaved heads. There are conspiracy theories, taking rounds in our circles, that something between India and Pakistan may have taken place behind the opaque walls and behind the backs of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.Is Kashmir issue dead now? The answer is no. Can India and Pakistan, venture a U turn on their respective stands and use force to hold the people down against their will? The answer is no. Both the TV presenter and the former Foreign Minister have spoken out their non-knowledge of the jurisprudence of Kashmir case. Kashmir issue may be “a dead issue now” or India and Pakistan may wish it to die for an immediate political gain. Pakistan has suffered in the field of diplomacy on Kashmir and Hyderabad at the United Nations, because its interests and the interests of the people of Kashmir were looked after by such poorly qualified Foreign Ministers. These politicians in such senior positions have always grown wild and become arrogant and have time and again come out with such statements, which have hurt and prejudiced the rights movement of the people of Kashmir. Kashmir is not an ‘issue’, it is a title of the people of Kashmir to self-determination. The issue has continued to irk India and Pakistan. Indian and Pakistani sovereign interests are a consequence of the right of self-determination (title). It would be the UN supervised vote of a Kashmiri which would accredit or reject anyone or either of the two sovereigns claims of India and Pakistan. So the statement of the Foreign Minister that “Kashmir issue is dead now” has no merit. Well if he has concluded that Pakistani ship has lost its anchor or India concludes that there is no Kashmir issue, it does not carry any message for the suffering people of Kashmir. United Nations has concluded a mechanism for the holding of a free, fair and secure, UN supervised vote in Kashmir. Reparation would be pressed against the Government of India for killing a generation and putting the habitat and people through an unprecedented indignity and violation of human rights It is a pity and more so a tragedy that the Foreign Minister has not only an unreliable understanding of the jurisprudence of Kashmir case, he has without reason insulted the Pakistani constituency in Kashmir as well. The statement has other serious consequences. Pakistan has to pass the rigorous test to convince the people of Jammu and Kashmir that it has not misdirected or faked its political, moral and diplomatic support to the Kashmir cause. People of Jammu and Kashmir, except one communication of 8 July 1948 addressed by the President of Azad Kashmir Sardar Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, to the Chairman UNCIP have been represented at the UN and other world forums by Pakistan. It would raise the question of duty to care and due diligence. If we have a case of a negligence and dereliction of duty, it would attract damages and reparation, for the continued wrongs suffered by the people. Reparation would be pressed against the Government of India for killing a generation and putting the habitat and people through an unprecedented indignity and violation of human rights. India army has violated the seven restraints agreed at the time of its temporary admission (four restraints) and the UN discipline of three restraints placed on their number, behaviour and location during their temporary presence in Kashmir. At the same time the statement does raise a serious question on the merits of Hurriet Conference and its Constitutional discipline and the militant leadership that emerged in early 1990. People of Kashmir have endured sacrifices, believing that there was a Constitutional politics and a disciplined militancy, fighting the Indian rule (occupation) in Kashmir. The Foreign Minister’s statement raises many questions on the political and militant leadership of the last 30 years. It would also place the claim of Pakistan’s political, moral and diplomatic support under a microscope, and attract the question of reparation. All institutions in Azad Kashmir and intra-agency arrangements in Pakistan, including the Kashmir Committee, would be held accountable for misdirected wisdom and a dereliction of duty. The salient features of the Provisional Declaration of 24 October 1947 of the Government of Azad Kashmir, Pakistan’s three documents submitted to the UN Security Council on 15 January 1948, the terms of Karachi Agreement of 28 April 1949 and arrangement of Government of Pakistan with the Government of Azad Kashmir under UNCIP resolutions would all come into discussion, for reconciling the merits of the Foreign minister’s statement. Pakistan practically gave up on Hyderabad since 426th meeting of UN Security Council held on 24 May 1949 and gave up on Kashmir since 1251st meeting of UN Security Council held on 5 November 1965 for almost 47 years and 31 years respectively. There was a complete lull all along until 1996, when Kashmir lost its regularity as an item on the Security Council agenda. The two items are now rehabilitated under an annual request made each year in the month of January. This year the request was made on 2 January 2020, in respect of Hyderabad question and The India-Pakistan question. Foreign Minister has shot himself in the foot and it has exposed Pakistan, Hurriet Conference and militant leadership to a serious situation and differing interpretations. People of Jammu and Kashmir would not make much fuss about their title to self-determination and Kashmir as an issue of Pakistan. In general and rightly so for holding together, the two interpretations were synergised and seen as complementary. However, when a former Foreign Minister concludes that “Kashmir issue is dead now”, Kashmiris have to salvage the merits of their case. It could be done by advocating the difference between a ‘title’ to self-determination and an ‘issue’ for Pakistan or India. An issue could die or lose its potency, but a ‘title’ lives on and is transferred from generation to generation. It is not an issue but Kashmiris right to self-determination that sits on the UN Security Council agenda. There is an agreed mechanism to settle the title. Accession to Pakistan or India are a consequence of this title. The author is President of London based Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations