The Indian government has protested against renaming the Northern Areas as Gilgit-Baltistan and the grant of internal autonomy to it and also also objected to the construction of Bunji Dam. The Indian demarche is ostensibly based on their self-contrived premise that Kashmir is an integral part of India, therefore, Pakistan could not change the status of the areas comprising the state. Pakistan has done well and is fully justified in rejecting the Indian claims. The entire world knows and acknowledges the status of Kashmir as a disputed territory. President Obama and the European countries have repeatedly shown their concern on the continued hostility between Pakistan and India over Kashmir and underlined the need to resolve it. Not only there are numerous UN resolutions calling for settlement of the dispute through a plebiscite but also numerous unequivocal commitments of Jawaharlal Nehru to resolve it in accordance with the UN resolutions. It would be appropriate to look at the Indian stance about Kashmir being an integral part of India in its historic perspective to put the record straight. It is now an established fact that despite the existence of UN resolutions and commitments by Nehru, the Indian leadership was never serious in holding a plebiscite and was always looking for excuses to circumvent the resolutions and resile from its stated position. So they found a solution which they thought would provide them an opportunity to wriggle out of their international obligations. They had a resolution passed by the Assembly of Occupied Kashmir in 1957 endorsing accession of Kashmir to India and then started claiming that by virtue of this resolution Kashmir had become an integral part of India. The move was not only summarily dismissed by the UN but was also rejected by the world community and Pakistan. The UN categorically said that the question of the accession could not be settled by any means other than provided in the Resolution on the subject. The disputed status of Kashmir has also been acknowledged by India itself in Clause 6 of the Simla Accord (signed in 1972) which underlines the need to resolve all disputes between the two states, including Kashmir through peaceful means. The Indian objection to the construction of Bunji Dam in Azad Kashmir is also ridiculous in the backdrop of the construction of Baglihar Dam by India in the Occupied Kashmir and plans to construct a number of other dams in violation of the Indus Basin Treaty. The Indian demarche therefore contradicts its own international commitments and is devoid of any legitimacy. The situation arising out of Indian protest fully vindicates the government stance to give internal autonomy to Gilgit-Baltistan, instead of according provincial status. The new arrangement has all the attributes of a province and yet has saved Pakistan from the diplomatic embarrassment that would have accrued due to such an unimaginable action. It has a governor, CM, Legislative Assembly and Council. The establishment of an independent election commission and Public Service Commission and the creation of the post of an auditor general will ensure political and administrative independence of the area and go a long way in resolving the hardships being faced by the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. Though late in coming, it is undoubtedly a quantum leap to self-governance. The government fully deserves the credit for this very positive approach. There can be a difference of opinion on the modalities to go about the business within the new political and administrative structure erected by the government - which is an essential ingredient of a democratic entity - but the new policy initiative cannot be challenged conceptually. It is a very sordid aspect of our politics that the opposition no matter which party it is considers its prime responsibility to discredit anything associated with the government. The sole purpose of this exercise is point scoring rather than presenting an objective evaluation of those steps. The white paper issued by PML-Q on the package announced by the government is a classic example of this traditional mindset. One of the major observations made in the statement of indictment was that since Gilgit-Baltistan was already a part of Pakistan, giving provincial autonomy to the area would have been no problem. This is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The area is part of disputed Jammu and Kashmir whose accession is yet to be decided. How could Pakistan commit the folly of giving it a provincial status under these circumstances? That would have certainly jeopardised and compromised our position on the Kashmir issue. Further if the PML-Q really believes in what it has said in the white paper, then why did it not do the same when their government formulated a policy on governing the Northern Areas in 2007? Who and what stopped them from taking the plunge? It is quite obvious that they knew it fully well that it was not possible. The question is why is it then demanding from the government what it could not do itself despite being in a position to do so? Nothing but politicking indeed. Same is the attitude of certain intellectuals and a section of the media who also prefer to look askance at every move made by the government, not out of any conviction but because criticising is the most easiest of the jobs. There are still others who like to see things through the prism of their own biases and political affiliations and therefore refuse to accept and acknowledge the virtues of the measures coming from across the political divide. Difference of opinion and free debate is the hallmark of any democratic dispensation but that is contingent upon objectivity and respect for the truth. It should not be used as a licence to distort facts and mislead the masses. The writer is a former diplomat and an academic