On February 5, as every year, the entire nation came together to observe Kashmir Solidarity Day, as it has since 1990 when the day was adopted to support the movement of the people of Kashmir for their right to self-determination, and to pay homage to the lives lost in this struggle. The day saw speeches and statements from political leaders across the spectrum. Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif addressed a session of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Assembly in which he re-emphasised the importance of dialogue as the key to resolution of all enduring issues between India and Pakistan, most significantly that of Kashmir. Separately, President Mamnoon Hussain met a delegation of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference at the Aiwan-e-Sadr a day before. The delegation included prominent officials and Hurriyat leaders. The president underlined Pakistan’s traditional stance that a resolution of Kashmir is only possible in accordance with the UN resolutions, which envisage a plebiscite to determine the Kashmiri people’s will. In his regular press conference, the foreign office spokesman reiterated the demand for the UN Security Council to take due notice of the long standing issue. On being enquired regarding the foreign secretary-level talks, which were a long awaited step towards dialogue between the historically antithetical neighbours, he responded that while currently no date had been arranged, diplomats from both sides remained in contact. Civil society also demonstrated its solidarity with the people of Kashmir with a multitude of events, seminars and special programmes highlighting the plight of the people under the cruel heel of the Indian army. In AJK too, several day-long protest rallies and demonstrations were held and a human chain was formed at different entry points of AJK as a symbolic display of unity. The many symbolic and literal expressions of solidarity, despite their empathic value, have over the years been reduced to mere rituals. While carried out with the same ceremony, they fail to have any impact on the ground realities. The political statements from the PM, president and the foreign office that reiterate the demand for a plebiscite in Kashmir that was ordained decades ago by the UN, unfortunately also keep our collective understanding of the issue years behind. The UN decision was taken then in the context of partition, which is also why it was to only give the Kashmiri people a choice between India and Pakistan. In addition, the UN resolutions do not hold the same value today, and especially since the Simla Accord in 1972, when owing to its disadvantaged position in the aftermath of the 1971 war, Pakistan had to concede its traditional position on Kashmir, agree not to pursue the issue on international forums and settle it bilaterally. Since then India has persistently avoided dialogue on the matter, and subsequent attempts by Pakistan to raise the issue in international forums have faltered because of the resistance from India and its allies, and also due to loss of international backing for Pakistan’s case over the years. However, all the wars and insurgency have demonstrated that neither side can overcome the other by force. Today, with both states known to be nuclearised, the only thing military action offers is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), proving the incontrovertible fact that war is no longer an option. Nevertheless, from the internationalisation of this issue by Nehru to the bilateralisation conceded by Bhutto, the deadlock has continued. There, is however, one hope demonstrated by the track record. It appears that it is only when the dialogue breaks down or is interrupted, as is the case currently, that both sides appear to revert back to their age-old positions, but when facing each other in diplomatic engagement, it is rationality that guides the process as apparent in the flexibility and more obliging demeanour that is recently becoming apparent. For a historic compromise, where without a change of borders there is a normalisation of relations, with both countries adopting a dignified stance to give the Kashmiris their due rights, what is needed is a mutual cognizance that no one party can impose its will on the other and sooner or later both have to converge on common ground. *