1

MUSHARUF’S 4 POINT KASHMIR FORMULA

(Article by Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General Washington-based World Kashmir Awareness)

1. The Four Points

a. Troops to be withdrawn from the region in a phased manner.

b. Borders to remain as they are on maps and people on either side of Line of control
(LoC) to be allowed to move freely.

c. Self-Governance or autonomous status (not independence) to Jammu and Kashmir for

internal management in all areas like trade, tourism, waters to maximize socio-
economic development of the region through cooperation.

d. A joint supervising mechanism to supervise the implementation of such a road-map for

Kashmir. This comprises of Indian, Pakistani and Kashmiri representatives.

2. 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.

Yes, 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Formula’ says that borders cannot be withdrawn.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. Such an
option is an insult to the intelligence of the Kashmiri people.

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?
 2
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.

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. It’s time for all
parties to recognize the realities on the ground, see the need to include the Kashmiri leadership at
the table, and begin to negotiate in good faith for the durable and permanent solution of the
Kashmir dispute.