Once a Greek prime minister, while talking to schoolchildren, said that he read Marx when he was 14 years old, and believed that socialism would ultimately win, but now, “it may, it may not.” Apparently, disappointment of the leftists is natural. Things seem to be moving backward. Left seems to be retreating. Leave alone class struggle, even class-consciousness is diminishing. This backward movement and retreat is, however, a well-crafted perception/deception. Leftism/liberalism is on the rise; intellect is on the rise. This can be judged by the rising magnitude of social development taking place in the countries that matter. No doubt a big segment of mankind living in the Muslim majority countries stands radicalised. The question is does it matter to the developed world? For the time being, it does. In future it will not. Constructing walls and disengagement is a solution that is repeatedly being talked about by the world leaders. Due to advancement in technology, capitalism becoming freer and opening up of world economies, wealth is growing fast and is reaching through its trickledown effect everywhere, though the degree of the effect certainly varies. Even countries like Pakistan where economic growth is stagnant since last 10 years, things are not worsening as much as they should have. It is due to adoption of new food generating and processing technology, huge remittances and generosity of lending agencies. What is happening is that prosperity is increasing and the key element in making it happen so is the role of advancements in technology. With the passing of time food shortages, water scarcity, energy deficiency, menace of genetic diseases, self-created environmental hazards, almost all except acts of God, will be overcome. What class struggle could not do, technology will. Future of humankind is safe, and technology will one day bring about surplus prosperity also. So Karl Marx’s dream of an egalitarian world is bound to materialise. While his concept of class struggle, which was an amalgam of superior political intellect and physical activism, did not succeed, his concept of social change depending on change in mode of production is succeeding with incredible speed. Machines (outcome of increase in intellect) have replaced the need of aggressive class struggle. More machines and less labour will shape mankind’s future, a future full of prosperity, and prosperity that is solution to most of our social and political problems. The dream of the people of Kashmir valley too will be realised one day. This day can come earlier provided a conflict-based approach is replaced by an intellect-based activity. My father was a democratic socialist. He in spite of having a feudal background formed the most vibrant political party, Kissan Mazdoor Conference, in the valley of Kashmir, whose prime manifesto was “land belongs to the tiller.” It happened soon as India ended feudalism by introducing land reforms in Kashmir. On the question of the partition of India, he was hopeful that a democratic America would help Kashmiris gain independence or a regional plebiscite. It did not happen so. Pakistan committed a blunder when it accepted Nawab of Junagadh’s request to make Junagadh a part of Pakistan. It was a clear violation of the Indian Independence Act to which the Muslim League was also a signatory. Junagadh was a Hindu majority state and also away from the borders of Pakistan. This act of Pakistan gave an excuse to the Maharaja of Kashmir, who consequently invited Indian army for help against the Pakistani-backed Pukhtoon fighters who had entered Kashmir to liberate it from the Maharaja’s rule. The rest is sad history. A war broke out between Pakistan and India for annexation of Kashmir. It ended when India approached the United Nations for finding a solution to the “situation in Kashmir.” The solution came but technically it favoured India. The adoption of the procedures leading to a solution depended on India’s consent. The ending of war was, however, a big benefit to Pakistan. No party could afford continuity of war. In case it did, Pakistan would have received millions of more Muslim migrants from India, and that would have crippled a newly born nation that was already facing all kind of shortages. And India would have lost a solid pillar of its secular identity. After the war, movement for liberation of Kashmir lost much of its momentum. The pro-Pakistan Muslim leadership of Kashmir had either been exiled or forced to migrate to Pakistan. However, a segment of Hindu politicians, activists and intellectuals who were associated with the Socialist Party and Kissan Mazdoor Conference kept the movement for Kashmir’s union with Pakistan alive. America did intervene and secretly approached Sheikh Abdullah. Whether it was a mission for an independent Kashmir or Kashmir’s union with Pakistan that even Sheikh Abdullah did not know. What was clear to him was that the superpower was not on India’s side. And that was enough for him to part ways with India. Nothing changed in Kashmir. No big movement appeared. Even America could not do anything beyond getting resolutions passed in the UN. Pakistan’s own attempt in 1965 backfired. Things changed in Kashmir in 1989, and a militant struggle against the Indian hold emerged. There were five reasons behind it. First, growing joblessness among educated class of Kashmiri; second, Iranian Islamic revolution; third, prosperity in Rawalpindi brought about by the American-Saudi dollars during the Afghan war; fourth, withdrawal of the Russians from Afghanistan; and fifth, Pakistan’s patronage. The movement has involved two generations of Kashmiris. Thousands have been killed, and millions have sunk into the deep wells of depression. In spite of all this, the movement is continuing. Is there any solution? Presently, India will not surrender a single inch of Kashmir no matter what Kashmiris do. Nor will Pakistan. India besides having external pressures faces internal imbalances due to its various diversities, particularly the religious ones. Pakistan’s lifeline passes or comes through Kashmir. So, where does the solution lie? It lies in the womb of time. It lies in prosperity. And it lies in India and Kashmir achieving a kind of prosperity level, which England and Scotland have. Afterwards, both may accept separation happily.