A clear pattern can now be observed in Kashmir regarding the approach to the conflict in and over Kashmir of powers that be. This pattern lends itself to the assessment that the new policy is neither engagement nor dialogue but pressure and “neutralization” of militancy in Kashmir. In a way, this policy appears to hark back to the statement that Indian Home Minister, Rajnath Singh, made a couple of months ago regarding “finding a permanent solution to Kashmir”. The contours and implementation of this policy finds its manifestation by the almost quotidian killing of militants. These killings are, sometimes, accompanied by civilian killings. If indeed, this is the new policy, then killings and pressure appear to be viewed as a surrogate for conflict resolution. But this approach is as ahistorical as it is based on hard, raw power. History eloquently demonstrates that an approach based on raw power merely transforms conflicts by making them more truculent. The same would, given this lesson of history, apply to Kashmir. The powers that be appear to treat militancy itself as a cause of the conflict in and over Kashmir. But, militancy here is merely a manifestation of the conflict. Causality and its chain needs to be understood in the context of Kashmir. This chain of causality reveals that more than a few factors lay their ingress on the causal and feedback loop of the Kashmiri collective conscious. This causal and feed back loop gives rise to deep and wide sentiment of which militancy is a mere manifestation. All this can be traced back to the conflict in and over Kashmir. Common sense then suggests or more accurately dictates that for peace( which can always , in any permutation and combination be relative) to obtain and descend in Kashmir, the conflict be resolved. Admittedly, this is an iterated cliché but there really is no other alternative. For real(even thought relative) peace to obtain in Kashmir, the nettles have to be grasped and all the dimensions of the conflict be resolved. The current approach by powers that be amounts to pacification and control. Inhering in both is relapse of the conflict in terms that , to repeat, might be more truculent and hard(er) to resolve. It is about time a sober perspective on the conflict in and Kashmir be attempted to be arrived at and a conflict resolution paradigm that redounds to the good of all- especially Kashmiris- is developed and implemented in al sincerity and good will.