Chinese representative Mr. Hsueh said at the 1012th meeting of the UN Security Council held on 15 June 1962 that, “Let me express the hope that the people of India and the people of Pakistan will face the problem of Kashmir not only with warm hearts, but also with cool heads”. A warm heart and a cool head, of course would see India and Pakistan through the present and future estrangement. Engagement is the final instrument used in the settlement of disputes. India has wronged the people of Kashmir living on its side of cease fire line and according to a test of compliance laid down by Netherlands at the 611th meeting of the Security Council held on 23 December 1952, it has “loaded upon itself a very grave offence, against the other party (Pakistan), against the United Nations and against the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination”. Therefore, Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Imran Khan had to be different at the 75th Session of UN General Assembly on 27 September 2020. Prime Minister was different to his first address made at the 74th session of UN General Assembly held on 27th September 2019. He was different in style and his narrative on Kashmir was massive and prevailing. His team in the PM house and in the foreign office had worked hard to make it, more than the old flex of the diplomatic routine. We have not challenged India on her agreements made with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir before going to UN Security Council and have not called out Government of India on the conditions under which a temporary admission into Kashmir had been granted to its forces The UN – Kashmir desk in the foreign office and people in other intra-agency disciplines working on Kashmir, did not repeat the copy paste habit but have been very imaginative. Prime Minister quoted “reports of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, communications from the Special Rapporteurs of Human Rights Council, statements from human rights and civil society organizations” in making a case for the besieged people of Indian occupied Kashmir. It was for the first time that various constituents in the broad constituency of evidence against India were flagged by the Prime Minister. One could see a refreshed input in the statement. It is important that we acknowledge and present the broad spread of evidence. Acknowledging OHCHR, Special Rapporteurs, human rights and civil society organizations (NGOs) has been a commendable and smart move. It dignifies the merits of the narrative, in Kashmiri’s favour. India of course would not have such constituents to back up her case. Pakistan could not and as admitted by Human Rights Minister, Mme Shireen Mazari, has failed to follow upon the Prime Ministers address made at the 74th session of UN General Assembly in September 2019. Genuine concerns and criticisms were made in Kashmir and in Pakistan. Even the Kashmir Committee has failed to take its first concrete step. There is no doubt that we do not have a comprehensive policy on Kashmir except ticking the old dotted lines. If we perpetuate it and fail to construct a robust follow up on the speech made by the Prime Minister at the 75th session of UN General Assembly on 25 September 2020, we would be allowing India an easy nudge pass and landing ourselves in a cul de sac. India would be at the UN Security Council from First January 2021 and has a chair for two years. Imagine, if the case would have been the “Jammu and Kashmir Question” India would have considered many options to outmanoeuvre Pakistan. It is a gift from those leadings minds at the UN SC who changed the title to “India-Pakistan Question” at the 231st meeting of the Security Council held on 22 January 1948, that India can’t consider any options to wrong the Kashmir case. It does not however, mean that India does not have options and would not invoke the political philosophy of Chanakya. Prime Minister of Pakistan has set out the Kashmir case. It entails our serious follow up and this could be a distributed follow up from Islamabad to Muzaffarabad, Civil Society Organizations, Diaspora and taken to every Kashmiri living in any part of Jammu and Kashmir and in any part of the world. The challenge at hand is to find a ‘proportionate’ and a ‘pointed’ response to vacate the Indian unlawful actions of 5 August 2019 and thereafter. We need to reconsider that while petitioning the UN Security Council under article 35 of the Charter, both parties have averred that their bilateral engagements under article 33 had failed. It was not correct. The remaining important mechanisms of “arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice” have not been exhausted. We have not challenged India on her agreements made with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir before going to UN Security Council and have not called out Government of India on the conditions under which a temporary admission into Kashmir had been granted to its forces. There is an urgent need that we seek the rehabilitation of Entry Permit required for Indian citizens for visiting Kashmir which was unlawfully rescinded by the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir on 31 March 1959. We have an experienced Ambassador Munir Akram at the UN in New York and he could start opening up on this demand. We would help him to construct a narrative. The other most important work which needs our immediate attention is the advice given by Canada at the 235th meeting of UN Security Council held on 24 January 1948, “that we should afford security to the people of Jammu and Kashmir”. Canadian representative General McNaughton proposed, “to afford security to the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir under some authority which will be recognised by everyone concerned as strictly impartial”. Prime Minister, his team in PM House, people in the foreign office and in the intra-discipline agencies have come out very cool and prevailing at the UN General Assembly. There has to be a well distributed follow up. India would not sit idle. The author is President of London based Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations