Two recent events have given a totally new angle to the debate raging about the final solution of the vexed problem of Kashmir. A young popular leader Sajjad Lone on the death anniversary of his slain father proposed separation of unwilling parts of Jammu and Ladakh to enable the creation of an Independent Muslim State of Kashmir. He had earlier given a comprehensive treatise for the solution of Kashmir, which he calls the “Achievable Nationhood”. There is nothing wrong with an Independent Kashmir but Kashmir is Kashmir, it is neither Muslim, nor Buddhist, and nor Hindu. The second historical change is the most popular leader of the freedom movement, Syed Ali Shah Geelani supposed to be a “hardliner”, declaring that the total Independence could also be an option for solution of Kashmir. The party to which the said leader belongs has all along been known as the extreme right wing group advocating nothing less than the total and complete accession of Kashmir to Pakistan. It is very welcome that the popular Kashmiri leadership is becoming more flexible and is prepared to consider many possible and practical options. This changed stance has sent shock waves among the vested interests who want to scuttle the ongoing peace process by all means. Almost immediately after the speech of Sajjad Lone, so called “leaders” from different branches of the “Mainstream” condemned him for this “crime” of speaking out the truth without any fear or favour! On one hand the “leaders” condemning him have failed to give a clear cut goal and a road map to reach that goal to the common people and on the other hand they do not have the patience or the decency to accept others’ view points. We may disagree with certain formulations or proposals but no one has a right to scuttle any thought process or a discussion or debate concerning the possible solution of this most vexed problem. It would have been more gentlemanly to appreciate the outspoken attitude of the young leader. His mere declaration does not change the status of Kashmir. There is a long way to go! What have all other leaders been saying? Confusing and vague declarations about satisfying the aspirations of the people. One point, two point or four point proposals or formulas. Place of honour and dignity without defining what it means to a common Kashmiri or how he is going to achieve it? Kashmiris are not struggling for some vague formulations but they are demanding their basic rights! No formulation, proposal, or solution would be acceptable to Kashmiris which does not uphold their basic rights. The demand for separation of Jammu and Ladakh is not a new one. It has been there for quite sometime. Some of the leaders of these regions have been demanding it off and on. The demand for Union Territory status for Ladakh and declaring Jammu as a separate State has not generated so much adverse reaction as a simple statement about Independent Kashmir has generated. It is a matter of debate whether the people of Jammu and Ladakh sincerely want a separation or they have been using this demand to blackmail the valley rulers to derive more and more benefits for their regions. If now, for a change, some Kashmiris are supporting these demands in their own interest, why should heavens fall? In fact, the two statements about the possibility of an Independent Kashmir can be starting point of a lively debate on the subject. Kashmir has existed as an Independent Sovereign State for a major portion of its recorded history. The erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir has been a colonial creation. The State did not come together by the free will of the people of different regions. These were clobbered together by the Dogra Maharaja Gulab Singh by conquest and purchase from the British. An entire country with its people was purchased for Rs.7.5 million under the infamous Treaty of Amritsar. Independent State of Kashmir has always consisted of the valley surrounded by its peripheral areas. In the present set up it would have been ideal to have a Federal Republic of Kashmir comprising the erstwhile princely State of Jammu & Kashmir and that too with a Presidential form of Government. However, an analysis of the whole set up and its history of last 60 years easily reveals that different regions have different aspirations. It will be impossible to satisfy the aspirations of all regions in a single practical and workable solution. Our two giant neighbours have their own strategic considerations and compulsions. They have both rejected the option of total Independence for Kashmir in the very beginning. Pakistan may never agree to part with the Northern Areas. These are strategically indispensable for its relationship with China and Central Asia. With Gawadar Port coming up as an important outlet for Chinese, there is no possibility of the main access along the Karakoram Highway ever being given up by Pakistan. Moreover, the future of its water resources will require Kashmir to be either under its own control or being disposed to it in a friendly manner. Similarly, Ladakh, especially the Leh district is totally indispensable for India in terms of its strategic location concerning the Peoples Republic of China. This reduces the area to be resolved to Pak Administered Kashmir (Azad Kashmir), Kashmir Valley, and Jammu. The Muslims of Kashmir had been looking towards Pakistan as their eventual emancipator and were emotionally attached to it. However, the recent whimsical attitude of its ruling leadership going to the extent of foregoing their total claim on the State has made Kashmiris re-examine their unilateral commitment of ultimate accession to Pakistan. They now doubt the very sincerity of Pakistanis and are feeling that they may be better off as an Independent entity. In any case, merger of Muslim majority Kashmir with Pakistan would be a problem for the Hindu minority as has been the case in reverse for the Kashmir’s Muslim majority in Hindu majority India. The ideal situation for Kashmir may be to get away from both the conflicting neighbours as an independent entity and have mutually workable relationship with them. They would have to accept it as a sovereign state with joint guarantee of its defence. It could be an important hub of economic activities for the entire South Asian and Central Asian Regions being strategically located. A full fledged “Free Economic Zone”. There may be, however, a problem with Jammu and Ladakh. The Hindu majority areas of Jammu and Buddhist majority areas of Ladakh may not be comfortable with a Muslim majority Kashmir. This leaves us in the end with Sajjad Lones’s Muslim Kashmir comprising of the valley and parts of Ladakh and Jammu. Thus the declaration made by him for making this “unreasonable” demand does not seem to be an off the cuff remark but a deliberate well thought out proposition for generating a debate on the subject. Interestingly, after the speech of Sajjad Lone, the Jammu leaders have watered down their demand for separation from Kashmir and are suggesting re-organisation of the State instead of creating a separate State of Jammu. Kashmiris have been a witness to “Kashmir bashing” by Jammuites for a long time. For a change the Kashmiris are using the same stick in reverse to settle old scores! They are now proposing separation of Jammu from Kashmir. However, the occasion is opportune for starting an intellectual debate in right earnest for discussing the various possible final solutions to Kashmir tangle. The first requirement is to allow totally free movement of Kashmiris throughout the state from both the sides. Different non-governmental organisations and the two universities should organise debates and seminars amongst all the stake holders on the subject. The taboo on political debate and discussion in the twin universities needs to be totally lifted. In USA, most of the foreign policy programmes are formulated by the think tanks in various universities. The Government welcomes these formulations and acts on these. A number of top presidential aids and advisors also come from these universities. Why can’t we have the same arrangement here?