The president of the National Conference (NC), Farooq Abdullah, has rooted for “internal autonomy” as the solution to the vexing and vexatious conflict in and over Kashmir. Farooq’s NC , after waxing and waning over “autonomy” in the pre- 90’s period, had passed an autonomy resolution when his party returned to power after a political process was engineered by the state. NC’s autonomy proposal was not countenanced by New Delhi then despite the party being in a coalition of sorts with the then NDA government. It stretches credulity to believe that the so called “autonomy” proposal would be accepted by powers that be in India at a time when India is in a course correction mode and review. This review is in the nature of political Hinduism and its protagonists- the far right party, the BJP and its sister organizations- seeking to transform India according to their worldview and tenets. In this schema, the far right forces seek to “assimilate” Kashmir more fully into the Indian Union. Given this power political climate, how would powers that be countenance NC’s autonomy proposal? All this, however, might be besides the point, in reality. Trotting out “autonomy” as the solution to the conflict in and over Kashmir defies the complex nature of the conflict in and over Kashmir. The conflict is a multi-dimensional one , with sovereign clashes between national states, clashes of different and differing territorial nationalisms and the aspirations of the people of Kashmir as its key and major components. Throwing in “autonomy” into the volatile mix flies fat against this complexity. Moreover, “autonomy” is neither a win win solution nor does it address the interests and aspirations of key stakeholders. In essence, it legitimizes the status quo- even if it is accepted by New Delhi. The conflict in and over Kashmir also has a historical dimension embedded in it. This is the legacy of the partition. With so many dimensions, the “autonomy “ proposal grafts simplicity on a layered and multidimensional , complex conflict. It then is not the panacea that it is touted to be. In the final analysis, given the very nature of the conflict in and over Kashmir, what is actually needed is an organic , multi- stakeholder conflict resolution paradigm and process which satisfies all stakeholders to it along with the aspirations of the people. “Autonomy”, to say the least, is not this paradigm. Period.