Conflicts, generally speaking, are defined by ebbs and flows. It is the context and the structuring conditions of conflicts that determine their intensity, fervency and moderation. Unless underlying conditions of conflicts are addressed, conflicts remain- either frozen or in abeyance. All this has a searing resonance in Kashmir. Historically, the conflict has not moved in either a straight line or a sequential manner. It has fluctuated in a non seamless way, depending on the nature of conditions within and without. As things stand now, powers that be have taken a hard power, violent approach in dealing with the conflict in and over Kashmir. This appears to have two components: one is to kill as many militants as possible , put pressure on the Hurriyat and allied political activists and close off dialogue with Pakistan. The hope on part of powers that be appears to be is this will resolve the conflict in and over Kashmir. But this is an ahistorical approach. If an analogy might be drawn, conflicts and conflict conditions are amoeba like. That is, they regenerate. The reasons accrue from the nature of conflicts and their underlying conditions. An historical example might suffice to illustrate this. The Treaty of Versailles, after the First World War was imposed upon Germans by the Allied powers. The terms of the treaty were harsh and forced upon the defeated Germany. The Treaty was based upon hard power. The assumption of the Allied powers was that by breaking and humiliating Germany, conditions for war in Europe and beyond would be dissipated. But, this was not to be. Only after a couple of decades , a revanchist Germany created conditions for war again and what ensued was the Second Great War. While the structural conditions were different then, but the broad thrust of the example remains. Conflicts then are defined by a certain recrudescence that is return to conflictual conditions. All this holds lessons regarding Kashmir and the conflict thereof. Sobriety and prudence dictate than instead of a hard power, nonchalant and bellicose approach towards the conflict in and over Kashmir, a reasonable conflict resolution approach be taken and employed. This would naturally mean and entail a multi stake holder paradigm wherein all stakeholders engage in robust , conflict resolution efforts. Any approach other than this carries the potential of the conflict reverting to type. Let prudence , sobriety and wisdom be the yardsticks and means employed toward a larger and noble end of conflict resolution.