People of Indian controlled part of Jammu and Kashmir (Re-occupied) would complete 385 days behind the doors today. The status of these territories has been explained in UN Security Council Resolution of 30 march 1951. Pakistan has also introduced a ‘new political map’ of these territories.The introduction of a map by Pakistan, makes Indian action of 5 August 2019 a military aggression and military occupation. Would Government Pakistan commit itself to this interpretation? It remains to be seen. Have we mishandled or awkwardly handled Kashmir and in the course have helped India? It is an important question. The situation today is a repeat, except a few variations in the conditions presented by Z A Bhutto at the 1087th meeting of the Security Council on 3 February 1964. Z A Bhutto informed the Security Council that “A wall of steel separates Indian-occupied Kashmir from the outside world. India is trying desperately to conceal what is happening there under a massive blanket of censorship. But enough leaks through to show that India’s colonial hold over Kashmir is disintegrating.”(Para 16 1087th meeting of the Security Council on 3 February 1964).All our strengths were in the reserve. Three Indian Prime Ministers Rao (1994), Vajpayee (2000) and Singh India (2006) offered Kashmiris, ‘sky as the limit’, ‘Insaniyat, Kashmiriat and Jamhooriat’ for a dialogue and the formation of five working groups to look into broad issues and problems vis-a-vis Kashmir. What has happened on 5 August 2019 begs a thorough audit and critical appreciation, of the manner in which the threecomponents of our struggle, namely, militancy, Hurriet and diplomacy went nose down..Our mishandling or awkwardly handling Kashmir has helped India. India has no future in Kashmir. One day it will leave lock, stock and barrelIndia has killed a generation of Kashmiri youth and has succeeded to herd our leadership into Tihar jail and some into other prisons outside Kashmir. She has profiled the Kashmiri youth into five categories for a paid killing. To a certain extent India has created a number deficit in our population. Death of a generation and the introduction of new domicile laws after 31 October 2019, are a serious threat to any future UN supervised vote on self-determination in Kashmir. Pakistan was robust and very aggressive on 3 February 1964 in its advocacy on Kashmir. Z A Bhutto reiterated the commitment that “The Government and people of Pakistan are totally committed to the liberation of their Kashmiri brethren. They will not tire, neither will they falter in the long and bitter struggle until the right of self- determination, as pledged to them in the resolutions of the Security Council and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, has been implemented.” (Para 12 1087th meeting of the Security Council on 3 February 1964).Pakistan and the people of Pakistan are not the same today. Pakistan is a nuclear State and it cancels out any misadventure by India, unless the Indian leadership wants to bequeath a “Hiroshimaand Nagasaki”to its future generations.Pakistanwould not escape the nuclear brunt either.There could be a war but surely not a nuclear war. Pakistan has an edge over India in executing the jurisprudence of Kashmir case. It has a reliable constituency in all parts of the State and among the diaspora. Unless it loses it by an iniquitous approach. Many minds in Pakistan, at various levels of engagement and decision making, have misgivings about UN mechanism on Kashmir. They misinterpret it.Islamabad may be engaging AJK Government, Kashmiri experts and institutions, but it seems to be haphazard or shrouded in undesired secrecy. JKCHR which has been interpreting the jurisprudence of UN Resolutions on Kashmir from May 1987, has yet to understand how the two Governments of AJK and Pakistan, engage each other on the question of UN jurisprudence of Kashmir case and their duties under UNCIP Resolutions. JKCHR has argued and interpreted the duties of AJK Government in respect of self-determination in a constitutional writ petition Number 122 of 1992 decided by the full bench of AJK High Court in April 1999. JKCHR documents received by the UN Secretary General and released as UN General Assembly Documents on Kashmir, are a lead contribution on “Rights and Dignity” and “Security and Self-Determination.” The OP ED columns in Daily Times, cover all aspects of Kashmir case and serve as the reliable interpretation of Kashmir case.Government of Pakistan should have highlighted that Indian citizens required a visa to enter the State until 31 March 1959 and that Indian army was an occupying army, because it continues to violate the seven restraints placed on it bilaterally and by the UN. It could have refreshed its proposal of January 1957, for a sending a neutral UN Force in Kashmir.Pakistan has never made a reference to UN Secretary General’s two day visit of Kashmir in March 1959. It has erred to use substantive evidence to support the people of Kashmir and expose the Indian colonial control. For example RAW chief A S Dulat writes at page 205 of his book titled “Kashmir the Vajpayee years”that “The IB had a sinister reputation in the Kashmiri mind. Part of it was because since Independence, the IB had basically been running Kashmir..”We have hesitated to make a reference to the findings of The State Autonomy Committee report published in July 2000 and seem to be hesitant to make use of item 1 and 2 of the Gupkar Declaration adopted on 4 August 2019 warning Indian of any ‘aggression or assault’ against the State. Commitment to the Declaration has been reiterated on 22 August 2020 again. The Autonomy Report and the Gupkar Declaration have a substantive merit. We could club these two warnings with the merits of our call for the implementation of UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir.India has no case and no constituency left in Kashmir. Our mishandling or awkwardly handling Kashmir has helped India. India has no future in Kashmir. One day it will leave lock, stock and barrel.The author is President of London based Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations.