The present mess in Kashmir is attributed by many to a crisis of leadership. Total absence of leaders with conviction, ideals, and a vision for future. It is alleged that Kashmir has been facing this vacuum of genuine and honest leadership right from the start of the present movement in 1931. Normally for a people who have been living for centuries under the worst kind of oppression in history it is difficult to produce honest and genuine leaders. It is because of the exceptional resilience and adaptability that the Kashmiris have survived so long. In such worst conditions it is unrealistic to expect them to have the virtues of a free people. However, from time to time there have been rebellions against the outside invaders which have been ruthlessly crushed. Had Kashmiris got a breathing space between the arrivals of different invaders, they might have had a chance to throw up some good leaders. The continuous outside rule did not provide any opportunity for regaining the virtues which had been lost over a prolonged spell of colonial rule. The movement of 1931 had thrown up a new leadership which had challenged the autocratic rule. Had this leadership got the opportunity in 1947 for a free and unrestrained healthy growth like the rest of the sub-continent, there may have been a dramatic change. Unfortunately, the entire movement was deliberately scuttled and Kashmiris were thrown into such a jam that even after half a century they find no escape. Both the countries in their respective parts facilitated growth of only that type of leadership which would toe their line irrespective of the fact whether they were popular or not. They set up a role model for leaders in line with their colonial agenda. All attempts for the growth of true and honest leadership through a democratic process were overtly and covertly scuttled. The upheaval of 1990 which was an open mass rebellion did throw up a totally new and young leadership after rejecting the earlier traditional leaders who had failed to deliver due to their own human weaknesses. However, in a situation of trilateral conflict it is impossible for an honest, genuine, and popular leadership to survive openly. No sooner the leaders were identified; these were liquidated one by one ruthlessly. This was especially true of the leaders with independent thinking. The mainstream leadership was in the field purely for their own limited goals. They did not side with Delhi because of convictions or ideals but for their own selfish motives. They were filling the vacuum created by the disassociation of the majority from the mainstream. The only variety of leadership which was allowed to grow and flourish from the alienated majority was the one which had no originality and followed the traditional style of delivering speeches to enclosed audiences in mosques and other similar institutions. They preached abstract ideas and projected confusing goals. The maximum achievement they could be credited with was to give calls to the masses in support of their demands by observing total shut downs (locally called “Hartals”). In the absence of a blue print to achieve the goals preached by them, the people started getting disillusioned and even the shut downs started losing their effectiveness thereby rendering this type of leadership irrelevant. Moreover, both the classes of traditional leaders became fond of goodies. Mainstream group receiving these from this side and the opponents receiving the same from the other side. Material considerations weighed more than convictions and ideals. Failure of the traditional leadership to deliver and fulfil people’s aspirations resulted in the youth taking up the extreme step. They started with practice before preaching and became overnight heroes. However, they had to face a two pronged assault. This side did not tolerate any dissension from the mainstream whatsoever and the other side forced them to follow their own stream. Thus the independent local stream reflecting popular sentiment and aspirations had no chance of survival. They again went into the hard crusted shell in which they had been living for centuries. In other words, the leadership went underground. Kashmiris are considered to be intellectually superior to other people in the sub-continent. In fact, Kashmiri Pandits considered themselves to be the highest class of Brahmans in the entire country. The intelligent Kashmiri leader has become invisible. He is spread all over the society. Among Lawyers, among Doctors, among Teachers, among Students, among Government Officers and Officials including those in different Police and Security Forces. It is not possible to sustain an underground movement without the sympathy and active support of the masses. The incidents occurring from time to time do not occur on the spur of the moment without any planning but have a definite pattern. There is an invisible collective leadership sympathising, supporting, and guiding the underground activities. A part of this leadership is in different jails for last more than sixteen years. The over ground traditional type media projected and state protected leaders are only the visible dependent face. They are relevant as long as they reflect and project the popular sentiments and aspirations. The moment they try to deviate from that, they become irrelevant. So it will not be correct to say that there is a leadership vacuum in Kashmir. Earlier Kashmiris were fond of a single charismatic person. They had taken the personality cult to the extreme which was evident from the popular slogan that whatever the leader does we follow it. It was a totally blind faith in one person which has been in reality the main cause of the present mess. A single shepherd leading the dumb driven sheep from one pasture to another. If this single person was tamed, everything could be managed. But not now! Kashmiris may still be like sheep but they are intelligent and experienced sheep now. They have become selective in choosing their own shepherds. The present negotiations and interactions are taking place only with the traditional motivated mainstream leadership. Even the visible over ground leaders claiming to represent the peoples’ aspirations have not been tapped. Not to mention the real invisible leaders really controlling the movement and calling the shots. Thus any solution arrived at in such a set up has the least chances of success. The only correct and sensible approach would be to bring out the true and genuine leadership out of the hard crusted shell. This can be done through an impartial and transparent referendum held under neutral international machinery. The referendum would not be to find the solution but to identify the people who can help find the solution. The sooner it is done, the better it would be for an accelerated final solution of this mind boggling problem.