Chenab Formula & Musharraf’s
four point formula - A possible Solution of the Kashmir Dispute and a criticism
of the two proposals
Possible Solutions
1. The Status Quo
In 1947-48, India and Pakistan fought their first
war over Jammu and Kashmir. Under United Nations’ supervision, they agreed to a
ceasefire along a line which left one-third of the state administered by
Pakistan and two-thirds by India. In 1972, under the terms of the Simla
agreement, the ceasefire line was renamed the Line of Control (LoC). Although
India claims that the entire state is part of India, it has been prepared to
accept the Line of Control as the international border, with some possible
modifications. Both the US and the UK have also favored turning the Line of
Control into an internationally-recognized frontier This is more or less what late Mr. Vajpayee
offered to Pakistan during his visit to Lahore and Pakistan.
But Pakistan has consistently refused to accept the
LoC as the border since the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley would remain as
part of India. Formalizing the status quo also does not take account of the
aspirations of the Kashmiri’s.
2.
Kashmir Joins Pakistan
On 2nd November, 1947 India’s first Prime Minister
Pandit Jawharlal Nehru announced on All India Radio that “Kashmir future will
be decided by the means of plebiscite”. It essentially meant that the
allegiance of the state of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by the Kashmiri’s.
Had the majority voted in favor of Pakistan, the whole state would have become
part of Pakistan.
However the promise of plebiscite is still pending.
India claims that people’s participation in elections shows that people are
happy and there is no demand for any plebiscite. Pakistan and those opposing
this viewpoint on the other hand say that the elections have never been free
and fair in Kashmir and when they have been so, the people have voted for
governance issues like roads, electricity and other amenities, and not for
sorting out the Kashmir dispute.
However the demand for a plebiscite to be held, as
recommended by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten in 1947, and
endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, is still considered by Pakistan
as a way of letting Kashmiri’s exercise their right of self-determination.
3.
Kashmir Joining India
In 1947, the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir agreed
to the state becoming part of India. India and Pakistan then agreed to hold a
plebiscite to confirm which country Kashmir’s citizens wanted to join. The
Indian Government believed that the majority population, under the charismatic
leadership of Sheikh Abdullah, would vote to join India, with its secular
constitution, rather than Muslim Pakistan. If the plebiscite had been genuinely
held and the majority had voted in favour of India, Pakistan would have had to
relinquish control of the Northern Areas and the narrow strip of Jammu and
Kashmir. But, sensing an impending defeat of its aspirations, India has
intentionally kept shut the door of plebiscite. Moreover, such a solution would be unlikely to bring any stability
to the region as the Muslim inhabitants of Pakistani-administered Jammu and
Kashmir have never shown any desire to become part of India.
4.
Independent Kashmir
In the 1960s, following discussions between India
and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir, a group of Kashmiri’s demanded that the
entire state should become independent as it was prior to the Maharajah’s
accession to India in 1947. But, the difficulty of adopting this as a potential
solution is that it requires India and Pakistan to give up territory, which
they will not be willing to do. Any plebiscite or referendum likely to result
in a majority vote for independence would therefore probably be opposed by both
India and Pakistan. It would also be rejected by the inhabitants of the state
who are content with their status as part of the countries to which they
already owe allegiance. And in view of the likely regional instability, an
independent Kashmir is not supported by the international community either.
An
independent Jammu and Kashmir might also set in motion the demand for
independence by other states in both India and Pakistan and lead to a
“Balkanisation” of the region.
5.
A Smaller Independent Kashmir
If, as the result of a plebiscite, which offered
the option of independence, the majority of the inhabitants of the Kashmir
Valley chose independence and the majority of the inhabitants of Azad Jammu and
Kashmir also chose independence, a smaller, independent Kashmir could be
created by administratively joining these two areas together.
This would leave the strategically important
regions of the Northern Areas and Ladakh, bordering China, under the control of
Pakistan and India respectively. However both India and Pakistan would be
unlikely to enter into discussions which would have this scenario as a possible
outcome. Regardless of the aspirations of the inhabitants, to date neither
country has contemplated a situation where the end result would adversely
affect their own interests.
6.
Independent Kashmir II
The movement for independence in the Kashmir Valley
gained momentum in the late 1980s when Kashmiri’s protested against their
continuing allegiance to the Indian Union. In the present day, if a regional
plebiscite offered independence as an option, it is possible that the majority
of Kashmiri’s would vote in favor of independence. Moreover, an independent
Kashmir has been considered by some as the best solution because it would
address the grievances of those who have been fighting against the Indian
Government since long. But critics say that the region would not be
economically viable without external assistance.
7.
The Chenab Formula
This
plan, first suggested in the 1960s, would see Kashmir divided along the line of
the River Chenab. With the inclusion of Ladakh, which also lies north of the
Chenab River, India would be left with approximately 3,000 square miles of
territory out of 84,000 square miles. This would give the vast majority of land
to Pakistan and, as such, a clear victory in its longstanding dispute with
India. The entire valley with its Muslim majority population would be brought
within Pakistan’s borders, as well as the majority Muslim areas of Jammu.
This solution would require the voluntary agreement
of India to give up territory which it wants to retain. It is impossible to see
what benefit India could derive from the transfer of so much land, and why the
government – or the inhabitants of the region who are not contesting their
status – would ever agree to such a solution.
8.
The Chenab Formula II
Chenab Formula is
one the seven popular formulas given for resolving Kashmir conflict.
These series of formulas ranges to two extreme with one of them allotting
entire Jammu and Kashmir State to Pakistan while other one allotting entire
state to India. The Chenab formula was proposed in late 1960s as
one of the possible solution to conflict. However, it gained prominence (with
some differences) during Musharraf period of Pakistan. It is based loosely on
combination of 2 nation theories and geographic feasibility of division of the
state.
Under the
Chenab formula, the state of Jammu and Kashmir should be divided on the lines
of Chenab River which flows through the state. If divided, the north of the
river part will go to Pakistan while southern part will go to India. The formula
can be described as follows:
1
Three entities to be carved out of the area of pre-1947. Jammu and Kashmir are now
being administered by India. These three parts would be represented by a body
which will take care of issues of common interest.
2
Two entities, in the part being administered, by Pakistan would be established,
these being Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas. They would be represented in a
coordinating body that would consider issues of mutual interest.
3.
An All-Kashmir body will be set up to co- ordinate issues of broader interest
such as trade , tourism , environment and water resources .this body will
include representatives from each of the five entities as well ad from
India and Pakistan .
4.
Each of the five entities would have its own constitution, flag, and legislature. Which would legislate on all
matters other than defense and foreign affairs? India and Pakistan would be.
Responsible for the defense of the entities and the entities would maintain
their own internal law and order. India and Pakistan would be expected to work
out the financial arrangements for the entities.
5.
Citizenship of the entities would also entitle the citizens to acquire
Pakistani or Indian passport depending on which side of the Line of
Control they live in. Alternatively they could use entity passports subject to
endorsement by India or Pakistan .as appropriate.
6.
The border of the entities with India and Pakistan will remain open for
the free transit of people , goods and services in accordance with
arrangements
to
be worked out between India , Pakistan and the Entities .
7.
While the present Line of Control will remain in place until such time as
both India and Pakistan decided to alter it in their mutual interest ,
both India and Pakistan will demilitarize the area included in the entities .
Neither India nor Pakistan could place troops on the other side of the Line of
Control without the permission of the other State.
8.
All displaced persons who left any portion of The Entities would have the right
to return to their home localities.
Musharraf’s Four-point Formula
There have been numerous attempts, certainly, in the past to
present proposals for resolving this dispute, but none has seemed to take hold.
Musharraf’s Four Point Formula which was widely discussed in 2006
General Musharraf’s Four-point formula involves the
following:
1. Demilitarization
or phased withdrawal of troops
2. There
will be no change of borders of Kashmir. However, people of Jammu & Kashmir
will be allowed to move freely across the Line of Control.
3. Self-governance
without independence
4. A
joint supervision mechanism in Jammu and Kashmir involving India, Pakistan and
Kashmir.
9. Discussion
Demilitarization is an option that was suggested by the United
Nations and in particular by Sir Owen Dixon of Australia. This has been the
demand of the leadership of the Kashmiri resistance that demilitarization from
both sides of the Ceasefire Line will pave the way for a serious and thoughtful
solution to the Kashmir dispute.
The Line of Control is in fact a line of conflict which needs to
be eroded so that the people of Kashmir can move freely from one area to the
other. But the problem arises when the ‘Four-point Formula’ says that borders
cannot be withdrawn. That is a very loaded phrase. That means that the Line of
Control should in fact be established permanently as an international
border. This would be a possible
‘solution’ for both India and Pakistan but not for the Kashmiri people. India
lost an opportunity and the Butt, Guru and Wani affairs have perhaps brought
the Kashmiri to a tipping point where a status within the Indian federation
would not be at all acceptable
Self-governance undoubtedly has broad meaning. Self-governance
means freedom, independence and autonomy. It means that the people would be
makers of their destiny. It also means that one has to be the shaper of one’s
future. So, the term self-governance by itself is not an issue but the concept
of self-governance within the parameters of Four-point Formula is. It is problematic
because under this plan, self-governance excludes the option of freedom or
independence. In fact it clearly says that the people of Kashmir will be given
self-governance without independence. Will India retain the power to tax the Kashmiris? Will
people have a hand in the politics and influence who has the mandate to rule?
Will they pass new laws which infringe on the limited self-rule the Kashmiris
possess? Where does self-rule begin and where does it end, if
Kashmir does not possess sovereignty over its land?
The drafters of the four-point formula have been quite conscious
of the sentiments of the people of Kashmir. They knew that the resistance to
foreign occupation that began in 1931 and continues until now does not accept
de-facto rule by any country over Kashmir. Therefore, they wanted to play a
linguistic game and came up with the idea of self-governance which is a
deceptive and misleading term that gives an appearance of sovereignty without
any substance. It is purely a mask. It prohibits further discussion on the
subject of independence and promotes internalization of the Kashmir dispute.
Without actual sovereignty for Kashmir, under the Four-point formula, the
people of Kashmir will have to accept the supremacy and rule of India over
their lives, and the possibility of that being eroded by whatever whim, fancy
or circumstance may intervene in the future. Perhaps self-governance now,
designed and managed by external powers, which is subject to the will of those
foreign powers without due respect for the sovereignty of Kashmir and all the
international protections that accompany it, has the appearance of a step in
the right direction but on an extremely slippery slope. Self-governance is a
mere illusion: what is given can be taken away, when it does not in fact
include true sovereignty.
Those who believe that the people of Kashmir should accept the
Musharraf’s Four-point formula should be bold enough to say exactly what it is
i.e., that the formula gives the people of Kashmir only choice and that is to
be part of India. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. This is only a
slightly broader version of Article 370 drafted in 1949 which today practically
has become meaningless.
In order to reach an
imaginative settlement of the Kashmir dispute, all parties concerned –
Governments of India & Pakistan and the leadership of the people of Kashmir
– will have to show flexibility. But in the Four-point formula the only party
which becomes a sacrificial lamb and shows flexibility and makes sacrifice are
the people of Kashmir. That should not be an option. The demand for
self-determination is greater now than it has been in many years.
Dr Shireen M Mazari has stated that Pakistan needs to
aggressively put forward concrete proposals for the resolution of the Kashmir
dispute on the basis of the UN resolutions, on principle of self determination and
plebiscite, comprising the details of intermediary steps.
Proposed solution should problem resemble the
Irish Peace Accord. She made it clear that she was not referring to any
specific clauses of the said accord but the broad concept on the basis of which
the accord was signed and implemented. She also referred to the East Timor
independence based on the concept of self determination and said Pakistan
should press the Kashmir case on these lines. She also said Pakistan should ask
the United Nations to document all the Kashmiri’s in Indian Occupied Kashmir
(IOK) and also of the Kashmiri Diaspora across the world who qualified to vote
in the referendum based on the UN resolutions whenever it took place adding
that such documentation needed to be done. The minister said the citizens of Azad
Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) were already documented because they were participating
in regular elections.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was a 1985 treaty between the
United Kingdom and Ireland which aimed to help bring an end to the Troubles in Northern Ireland.The
treaty gave the Irish government an advisory role in Northern Ireland's
government while confirming that there would be no change in the constitutional
position of Northern Ireland unless a majority of its people agreed to join the
Republic. It also set out conditions for the establishment of a devolved consensus
government in the region.
An independence referendum was held in East Timor on 30 August 1999. The referendum's origins lay
with the request made by the President of Indonesia, B. J. Habibie, to
the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on 27
January 1999, for the United
Nations to hold a referendum, whereby the Indonesian province would
be given choice of either greater autonomy within Indonesia or
independence.
Conclusion
Kashmir conflict is no doubt an intractable
conflict making all parties to search for a formula to resolve the conflict
peacefully. What could be the political framework that will accommodate the
Kashmiri aspiration for self-determination, the interests of India and Pakistan
is the real challenge for those who seek peace in the region.
Considering the ground geo-political realities in
the Indian sub-continent, the most workable solution to the Kashmir dispute
seems to be minimizing the security forces in Kashmir and granting basic human
rights to the Kashmiri’s, reliving them from daily frisking, and focus should
be on creating more employment and education opportunity for Kashmiri’s. While
this may not be the ultimate solution to this issue, it may well prepare some
ground for a better solution and meanwhile relieve the people of the region
from their day-to-day turmoil. Musharaff did provide the Indians an
opportunity, He gave one sided concessions which included the elimination of
State owned training camps etc ; and allowed the Indians to fence the LoC and
Line of Actual Control , this was a big concessions for which neither the
Pakistanis nor the Kashmiri’s got any counter concession. India did not use the
respite offered wisely, Butt, Guru and Wani incidents have brought the
Kashmiri’s to a tipping point. Post Wani’s martyrdom the freedom movement is no linger in control
of the Freedom leadership in Kashmir the Indian actions have now brought the
Kashmiri Muslims to a tipping point where any Indian presence or role is
completely off the table.
Norwegian Initiative
December 14, 2018, 9:44 AM IST
The meeting of former
Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik with Kashmiri separatists in
Srinagar has drawn sharp reactions from former diplomats, security advisors and
strategic thinkers, given India’s declared policy on Kashmir of not allowing third-party
mediation on the issue.
Of the experts whom News18 reached out to, some called the move - of bringing in an outsider apparently to mediate in the affairs of Kashmir - as “unfortunate” and a move “against India’s national interest”. A former diplomat even took a dig at Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, whose Art of Living (AoL) organised Bondevik’s visit, saying that Shankar seemed to be under the illusion of being “a great peacemaker.” Bondevik, who heads the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, visited Srinagar on November 25, where he met senior Hurriyat leaders, members of chamber of commerce and of the bar association. A week later he visited Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and met the local leaders there.
Of the experts whom News18 reached out to, some called the move - of bringing in an outsider apparently to mediate in the affairs of Kashmir - as “unfortunate” and a move “against India’s national interest”. A former diplomat even took a dig at Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, whose Art of Living (AoL) organised Bondevik’s visit, saying that Shankar seemed to be under the illusion of being “a great peacemaker.” Bondevik, who heads the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, visited Srinagar on November 25, where he met senior Hurriyat leaders, members of chamber of commerce and of the bar association. A week later he visited Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and met the local leaders there.
Reacting to the
developments, seasoned diplomat and former Indian High Commissioner to
Pakistan, G Parthasarathy told News18, “We have a bigger policy to deal with
Pakistan. Our relations will be settled bilaterally. There is an agreement
which we have to always observe—the Shimla agreement.”
He added that there was a need to look “seriously” on the issue of Bondevik meeting Hurriyat leaders, and the manner in which this development came about. This was not the right way to negotiate. Bondevik at the time had said, “There are channels of communications open with Pakistan and backchannel talks that are never made public”.
Kanwal Sibal, former foreign secretary termed the meeting between Bondevik and separatists as “unfortunate”.
“It is very unfortunate that the sense was not shown by such people by interfering in very delicate foreign policy issues which goes against India's national interest,” Sibal said.
Taking a dig at Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Sibal said, “He has illusion about being a great peacemaker internationally.”
Shankar had organised a peace meet in Srinagar earlier in March this year as well. The event ran into controversy after a section of the audience reportedly left the venue before the spiritual leader could finish his address. Some local dailies quoted several attendees complaining they had been "tricked" into attending with promised gifts of cricket kits, sewing machines and bank loan waivers. AOL representatives had denied the reports.
On the question that how it could have been possible for Bondevik to travel to Kashmir without permission of the government, Sibal said, foreign diplomats visit Kashmir and there is no bar.
“This was not advisable and that this was touching upon very core national security sensitivities of India reliable to complications in the bilateral relationship,” he said.
Sibal says that the Norwegian ambassador to India should not have allowed this to happen.
He added that there was a need to look “seriously” on the issue of Bondevik meeting Hurriyat leaders, and the manner in which this development came about. This was not the right way to negotiate. Bondevik at the time had said, “There are channels of communications open with Pakistan and backchannel talks that are never made public”.
Kanwal Sibal, former foreign secretary termed the meeting between Bondevik and separatists as “unfortunate”.
“It is very unfortunate that the sense was not shown by such people by interfering in very delicate foreign policy issues which goes against India's national interest,” Sibal said.
Taking a dig at Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Sibal said, “He has illusion about being a great peacemaker internationally.”
Shankar had organised a peace meet in Srinagar earlier in March this year as well. The event ran into controversy after a section of the audience reportedly left the venue before the spiritual leader could finish his address. Some local dailies quoted several attendees complaining they had been "tricked" into attending with promised gifts of cricket kits, sewing machines and bank loan waivers. AOL representatives had denied the reports.
On the question that how it could have been possible for Bondevik to travel to Kashmir without permission of the government, Sibal said, foreign diplomats visit Kashmir and there is no bar.
“This was not advisable and that this was touching upon very core national security sensitivities of India reliable to complications in the bilateral relationship,” he said.
Sibal says that the Norwegian ambassador to India should not have allowed this to happen.
“I think this is part of loose approach against the separatists. This is not a happy development at all because it creates confusion about our foreign policy,” Sibal said.
Sources say there might be more meetings between Hurriyat and representatives from AoL.
“There are general elections ahead. We will have to be a bit patient. Developments can take place only after the new government is formed,” said a person involved with AoL’s events in Kashmir.
However contrary opinions, hailing the initiative, were also expressed. Among those who welcomed the move was former R&AW chief and Kashmir advisor to former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, AS Dulat.
Dulat said that the fact that Bondevik could travel all the way to Srinagar and meet Geelani meant that New Delhi was also on board.
He said that “there is no option but to talk”. He expressed optimism about Bondevik’s meeting saying “Scandinavians are masters” in settling disputes.
“They are masters of negotiations. They have always remained neutral and are very good at talking,” Dulat said referring to Irish settlement and other negotiations. “This is not a big development but certainly a positive one. Now we will have to see Mr Bondevik’s follow-up on this.”
According to some sources who were privy to the half-hour long discussion that happened between Geelani and Bondevik at the former’s residence, the “follow-up” on the meeting is likely to be with the “four-point” formula in the agenda.
Also known as the Musharraf formula or the Manmohan-Musharraf formula, the four-point formula is basically an idea of demilitarization, maximum autonomy, making border irrelevant, and joint management of the region.
It was the basis on this formula that the former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said, according to a leaked diplomatic cable, that the two sides had come quite close to resolving the Kashmir dispute. A final draft in keeping with the four-point template was reportedly being worked upon by the “back-channels”.
Most leaders in Kashmir, when the four-point formula was being touted as the key to resolving Kashmir dispute, including Abdullah and Mirwaiz, had shown willingness to work on it. But Geelani had been its most severe critic.
When asked about the reports that talks may be headed in the direction of the four-point formula, Dulat said, “It is the best point to start at.” “All the people including the separatists accept it. You might end at two points or two-and-a-half but it is the best point to start talks.”
