During the upcoming 75th Session of the UN General Assembly in September the world leaders would stay at home and speeches would be made via video link. It would be the first ‘virtual’ UN General Assembly. It is not clear whether Pakistan has made any efforts to seek to add Kashmir situation as additional item under Rule 15 of Rules of Procedure. It has to be decided by a majority of the members present and voting or if any effort has been made under Rule 14 to place Kashmir situation as a supplementary item on the agenda. “Any Member or principal organ of the United Nations or the Secretary-General may, at least thirty days before the date fixed for the opening of a regular session, request the inclusion of supplementary items in the agenda.” The history of Kashmir case at the UN Security Council reveals that the three Governments of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit or the Kashmiri leadership have never proposed anything to the Government of Pakistan or have ever made any input in regard to their pending case of self-determination at the United Nations. Kashmiris have been using the exit ramp of a misunderstood belief that advocacy at the UN or at any other international forum, is the responsibility of Pakistan. Be it so. It does not stop the Kashmiri Governments or leaders to make regular robust inputs and refresh the Pakistani narrative on Kashmir. The people of Kashmir and the Government of Pakistan cannot afford to continue with a habit of non-input and with a haggard Kashmir narrative. Both have to gel in their efforts and listen to all the views and opinions. An enquiry and a dissent do not mean a war between the parties. We need to be upfront and admit that Indian administered Kashmir is not the same after 5 August 2019. The status of Indian administered part of Jammu and Kashmir, referenced in UN SC Resolution of 30 January 1951, may have according to Indian point of view changed after 5 August 2019, in law it has no merit. It is an illegal occupation and a violation of UN SC Resolutions. It is no more a political issue but a legal one. Indian actions of 5 August 2019 and thereafter are a “very grave offence”. We find that the concern of the Government of Pakistan on the situation in IOK is neither direct nor as robust as we find at the 1089th meeting of the UN Security Council held on 7 February 1964. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan said at the meeting, “For India, the situation is simple. It is in possession of the major part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and would like nothing better than to be left alone. But we, seeing our kith and kin, our flesh and blood, suffer tyranny and oppression, shall we remain silent spectators?” Pakistan and we all helped Hurriet to appear on the world radar. Unfortunately, the political alliance did not address its inherent difficulties and failed to keep to its constitutional discipline We seem to have left the people of Kashmir “alone”. Militancy, politics and diplomacy has failed to help the people in the Indian occupied part of Kashmir. Should we revisit the merits of the various constituents of our struggle? Yes, there is an urgent need to critically evaluate the various elements. We had introduced the activities of our militants in 1990 as a ‘patriotic defiance’ against Indian occupation and this explanation was accepted at the UN Human Rights Commission (now it is Human Rights Council). Something must have gone wrong with the discipline of ‘militancy’ that we were tagged as ‘terrorists”, which our ‘armed bearing youth’ were not. Our militancy had full support of the common people and it is unfortunate that they failed to keep the integrity and discipline as soldiers of freedom. Our military force depleted and we became bankrupt. Pakistan and we all helped Hurriet to appear on the world radar. Unfortunately the political alliance did not address its inherent difficulties and failed to keep to its constitutional discipline. Hurriet failed to look after its Kashmir Awareness Bureau in Delhi, which could have been converted into the first embassy of Kashmir on the Indian soil. The constituents in the alliance were a poor political breed and failed the people of Kashmir. It was a serious error of judgement to allow a metamorphosis from militancy into diplomacy, trade and into representation. A pyramid of Kashmir politics caved in and degenerated into an unimpressive structure based on a ‘letter of authority’ system. There were no bench marks of merit. The latest difference of opinion has surfaced on Foreign Ministers statement endorsing the Gupkar Declaration adopted by seven political parties that have hitherto, supported India. The aggrieved school has misdirected itself in its protest.There is a difference between question of autonomy examined and demanded in The State Autonomy Committee report published in July 2000 and adopted by the two houses of Jammu and Kashmir Legislature (Indian occupied) and in the items 1 and 2 of Gupkar Declaration adopted on 4 August 2019. In fact the ‘True and Real Leadership” crying wolf today has committed the sin of dropping the reference to self-determination from the final declaration adopted at the Washington Kashmir Conference held on 20-21 July 2006. Gupkar Declaration of 4 August 2019, in items 1 and 2 goes far beyond and calls Indian actions as “aggression against the people of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.” It is a call against “Indian aggression” and a resolve to “defend identity, autonomy and special status of JK State against all attacks and onslaughts whatsoever.” We should not have any issue with this part of Gupkar Declaration, in which these parties have resolved to undo Indian “aggression” and “onslaught”. We should not walk parallel but should help them in seeking the vacation of Indian action of 5 August 2019. If Gupkar spirit fades after reinstating the 4 August 2019 status, Hurriet should continue its march to seek a UN supervised vote on self-determination. The author is President of London based Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations