The unstable situation in the country that has progressively worsened, especially since the PPP-led political set-up assumed the reins of power, has been of one of the principal concerns of those who are conscious of its implications for the future of Pakistan in the current geopolitical setting of the region. It rightly worries Syed Ali Geelani, the recognised voice of the genuine aspirations of the people of Kashmir, and has even prompted him to raise questions about the very survival of Pakistan. However, there is no doubt that if the government were to abandon its present attitude of a silent spectator and seriously address the problem, things would begin to change; for the nation has great potential to re-emerge from critical situations. Otherwise, it would be difficult to remove such worries from the minds of our well wishers. One cannot overlook the connection between a stable Pakistan and the success of the freedom struggle in the Indian occupied Kashmir; thus, the rationale of Ali Geelanis worries becomes obvious. He is also fully justified is complaining about the very serious blow that President Musharraf dealt to the Kashmir cause. By showing readiness to give up Pakistans principled stand of seeking settlement of the dispute under the relevant UN resolutions and go in for an out-of-box solution, setting aside these resolutions, he certainly caused grave damage to it. The Kashmiris continued struggle has, however, proved to the world that they cannot be taken in by such fake proposals. The present governments conduct is by no means better; perhaps, it is worse. The people of Pakistan have also been found lacking in taking action against those leaders who tried to spoil the Kashmiris case, but that hardly reflect their real sentiments. Unfortunately, their feelings for Kashmiris stand overshadowed by the mounting cares of life: poor law and order and growing impoverishment. Nevertheless, Mr Geelanis reprimand should awaken them to the crucial importance of the disputed state to Pakistan. The total unconcern that Mr Geelani showed to the outcome of the AJK elections is also not without reason. For the people of the occupied part of the state, neither these elections hold any importance nor does it matter which party wins. After all, they were not contested on the basis of any principle or ideology. The veteran Kashmiri leaders words can only be disregarded at our own peril. We must make all-out efforts to make the world understand the logic of Kashmiris struggle, their sufferings at the hands of the Indian security forces, and New Delhis own and the international communitys pledge to let them have their birthright of deciding their future. Unless these facts are widely publicised it is idle to hope that world powers would come forward to convince India of the futility of its stubborn slogan of atoot ang.