No single person in the history could have ever caused more trouble and agony for such a big chunk of humanity, for such a long duration, than the one man, known as Lord Mountbatten, who was sent by the British monarch as the neutral representative of the crown. He was made of so low material that he would encourage the love affair of Indian Leader Nehru with his wife, so he could ultimately be the Governor General of India (after partition), and he hated Quaid-e-Azam, who always talked of high principles and who hurt his ego by refusing to make him the Governor General of Pakistan, also. As an authority to divide the assets of India and Pakistan, Lord Mountbatten did all the possibly wrong he could do to create immense problems for the new born state. The long list of such problems would include factors like not deciding the fate of 561 princely states at the time of partition (to help India occupy most of the Muslim states later), the wrong allocation of Muslim majority districts of Gurdaspur (so Indians can have an easy way for Kashmir), Zira and Ferozepur (so Pakistan is denied of the big ammunition dump over there), also denying Pakistan of Ferozepore Barrage and headworks of Depalpur Canal coming to Pakistan, refusal to pay the agreed money (its share) to Pakistan in time, butchering of thousands of refugees who were coming towards Pakistan, closing the waters of all canals in Pakistan when millions of refugees(babies, patients, hungry and injured included) had taken shelter near the banks etc.

But the one problem which has caused more agony for the humanity for a record length of time, and is continuously bleeding the blood of the residents and the resources of India and Pakistan, is that of Kashmir. The two countries have fought two full-scale wars and three limited wars primarily based on this issue. The UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949, the Tashkent declaration, Simla agreement, the Lahore declaration, all have failed to resolve the issue which to Pakistan is the core of all issues and for India it is an attot ang (the integral part). Since partition in August 1947, the physical and political configuration of the state of Jammu and Kashmir has radically changed. At the moment it has four distinct parts. The state of Azad Kashmir is quasi-dependency of Pakistan. The Northern areas (former Northern province of J&K) are an affiliated part of Pakistan except Aksi chin, an area under control of Chinese. The rest of the original state of Jammu and Kashmir including the valley is under the occupation of India, where it has been granted a special status under the Indian constitution. Pakistan wants UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949 which call for plebiscite in the area, and hopes that it being a Muslim majority-area will accede to Pakistan. This is not acceptable to India who claims to have the accession claims through a doubtful document signed by ex-ruler of the state. It is important to point out that the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949 were accepted both by India and Pakistan, and they rule out an independent state, but ordain its accession to either India or Pakistan.

More than half a century has passed, but the issue still stands almost at the starting point. Indians have tried every kind of brutality to subdue the population from demanding separation from India. Since last many years they are constantly keeping about 800,000 standing army which roughly makes about one soldier for every three Kashmiris (women and children included), and probably they have learnt that by brutal force they cannot retain occupied Kashmir for all times to come. Besides keeping their one third of the army engaged, it is too big a drain on their national resources. Pakistan hopefully has also learnt that they cannot liberate or help liberate occupied Kashmir by force. So what should be the solution.?
Various solutions were being considered or offered since the first day of dispute, but nothing could be resolved, as the two countries remained embedded with their rigid stands. But few events have caused an extreme pressure on both the countries for reaching on some kind of solution. One such event was the overt possession of nuclear weapons by the two countries. India's nuclear testing in May 1998 caused fears in Pakistan that India would have the power to take over Azad Kashmir. Many Indian leaders including India's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member, L.K. Advani (now deputy Prime Minister), could not resist the temptation to assert within hours of the nuclear detonation, that, "the geopolitical situation in the region has changed so Pakistan should roll back its policy on Kashmir".

Pakistan's response in the shape of nuclear tests internationalised the Kashmir dispute and brought it back on the active agenda of the United Nations. The tests also quietened the high pitch of Indian leaders' threats towards Pakistan. The International community however, regards the situation as explosive and considers a solution of Kashmir necessary for the stability of the region.

The other significant event is that since getting the status of rulers of a unipolar world, the American attitude towards many Third World countries is that of a king and the subjects. The possession of nuclear weapons by a Muslim country is considered malicious in their eyes, and the fact that two of the subjects can cause tremendous harm to each other and the region because of being nuclear is a situation unacceptable to them. They would like to have things moving on their directions and not on the egos of the slaves. Thus, their insistence for an immediate solution of Kashmir (and later to roll back the nuclear programme ??).

During the past half a century, many possible solutions have been suggested. But recently, the Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, almost caused a stir, by openly supporting a formula of dividing the region on the basis of religion, known as "the Chenab divide of Kashmir". According to the 'Chenab Formula', Pakistan may consider 'Doaba', a narrow strip of land between Chenab and Ravi rivers in the suburbs of Shakargarh (distt. Sialkot) stretching up to Chamb, Dhodha and Rajwari districts as international border. "Even the town of Kargil might go to India under this 'give and take' but from Kargil upward, India will have to agree to give territory to Pakistan," the sources claimed. Most of the districts in Jammu and on the left bank of the Chenab are Hindu majority in the state of Jammu and Kashmir while in most of the districts on the western side of the Chenab, the Muslims are predominant. "Pakistan may also agree to forego its claim over Buddhist majority Ladakh region as well, but there will be no compromise on the Valley," the sources close to the establishment claimed. "The Muslim majority Valley is the main area of concern for Pakistan as Islamabad wants control over it," he said. "The Valley will be partially autonomous and there will be major changes on the borderline to adjust tehsils and towns surrounding the Valley between India and Pakistan. In short, the River Chenab will form the separation line between the Pakistan and Indian held areas".

The River Chenab is also known as Chandarbhaga. The Chandar springs from a large snow bed on the south-east of Baralacha pass 6096 M above sea level. The Bhagha stem on the North-western slopes of the same pass. The Chandra deviates to Northwest to a distance of about 260 kilometres, meeting the Bagha at Tandi. From Tandi to Kishtawar town the fall of the river is 10.36 metres per kilometre. The Wadvan River from the north joins the Chenab at Kishtawar with its perennial source of ice and snow at Nun Kun. The Chenab leaves the Himalayan mountains, 288 kilometres from Kishtawar.

Just for the record, India and Pakistan attained independence from British on 14th August 1947, and started the first full scale war for Kashmir on 27th October 1947. Ceasefire took place in January 1949 and formal signing was done in July 1949 under the auspices of United Nations. During these negotiations, the UN mediator Owen Dixon not only formalized the line of control but also suggested solution of Kashmir on permanent basis, according to which the redrawing of regions of the state as majority-Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim should take place. Later in 1950 he formally wrote the two countries to consider his proposals for a lasting peace. Since then this proposal has remained alive in various corridors of power in India and Pakistan.

Within Jammu, some Hindu fundamentalist supported this idea, for reasons of their own. In 1952, when the Praja Parishad Movement first raised the slogan of Jammu Alag Karo (Separate Jammu), the idea is in circulation although Parties in India have never openly supported such a divide. The Praja Parishad was founded by Balraj Madhok on the existing organisational base of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) in Jammu and shared its ideology of Hindu fundamentalism. The RSS proposal has the support of right-wing and anti-Kashmir parties like the Mukhti Morcha and Jammu Joint Students Federation which do not have much influence. The mainstream political parties have rejected statehood to Jammu and the trifurcation of the state. The National Conference termed the RSS resolution anti-national and outrageous.

Muslims in Kashmir are represented by APHC – All Parties Hurriyat Conference, and its one time chairman Prof. Abdul Ghani Bhat, has supported the 1950s Dixon Plan that envisages division of the state on religious lines, with the River Chenab as the line separating Muslim and Hindu-dominated regions. Another ex-chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani was always a strong advocate of the division of the state on religious lines.

At official level, both India and Pakistan have refused to entertain the Chenab formula. However, what does seem clear is that Pakistan is determined to secure significant concessions on Jammu and Kashmir, concessions which could prove of enormous consequence to all the key players in the State. Pakistan unofficially seems increasingly committed to a variant of what its diplomats describe as the Chenab Plan – a partition of Jammu and Kashmir along its communal faultlines. The suggestion was proposed in the 1960s by the Pakistan foreign minister at the time, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, but the idea was rejected by his Indian counterpart, Swaran Singh. It was a part of the track-II policy spearheaded by Niaz A Naik and R.K Misra as representatives of their Prime Ministers (Mr Nawaz Sharif and Mr Vajpayee) in early 1999 (after Lahore declaration). The formula was very much on the agenda when President Musharraf went to meet Mr Vajpayee in Agra.

But now that the suggestion has come from the Prime Minister of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Sardar Sikander Hayat, it has acquired an altogether different meaning. Understandably it has taken all sides to the dispute by surprise. In the words of BBC correspondent "It is difficult to imagine that the prime minister of a territory, which for all practical purposes is controlled by Islamabad, can be allowed to hold independent views on such a sensitive issue" ‘Mr Hayat is certainly the first prominent Kashmiri government leader on the Pakistani side of the divide to make such a huge departure from Islamabad's official position over the dispute. In an interview with the BBC in Early May, Mr Hayat suggested the need to explore various options for resolving the dispute, including giving a special status to the Muslim-dominated Kashmir valley. But the real bombshell came two days later, when Mr Hayat came up with a concrete proposal, suggesting that Jammu and Kashmir should be partitioned in such a way that the Muslim majority areas should be allowed to join Pakistan and the areas where Hindus or Buddhists were in the majority should go to India. Interestingly, another veteran Pakistan-based Kashmiri leader, Sardar Abdul Qayyum has endorsed the proposal. Mr Hayat says he is not ashamed of his suggestion. In fact, he has now come up with more arguments in support of his idea. He says this is the closest thing to the way the partition of India was planned in 1947, a reference to the idea that Muslims should be able to live as a majority in their own country, Pakistan. If the states of Punjab and Bengal were divided on religious lines at the time of partition, then "What is so wrong with the division of Jammu and Kashmir", Mr Hayat is reported to have said. So far the Pakistan Government has neither criticised his statement, nor has it tried to stop him from airing his views. However, for the record, Pakistan's foreign ministry has said that there has been no change in Islamabad's official position on the dispute.

Without naming anyone, the puppet Chief Minister of Held Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah opposed the suggestion by disclosing that a formula has been prepared to divide the state. Speaking in the Assembly Farooq Abdullah said that new borders are being created in Jammu and Ladakh along River Chenab and Malbek. He said that National Conference will not divide the state but a formula is under review to divide Kashmir in New Delhi. He said under this formula, there will be new international border along with Chenab Leia and Kargil. He said it is a pity that these people who opposed the division of Kashmir have now finalised the proposed formula for Kashmir division. He further said that it has been planned to divide Kashmir in four parts. Criticising BJP and Congress, he said that these parties have no courage to wage war. He said that Kashmiris are being subjected to oppression for the last 50 years. Lashing out at BJP, he said that in fact, this party is responsible for Kashmir situation. According to prominent English daily of Held Kashmir, Greater Kashmir, the United States is actively working on the formula to divide Kashmir and the ruling party of India BJP has also agreed to it. The report says that the Kashmir division formula has been presented by study group in United States which has the complete support of US. This formula has been named Chenab Formula under which an independent state comprising the Muslim-dominated areas has been proposed.

Mr Sikander’s ideas were strongly criticised by opposition leaders in the regional capital, Muzaffarabad. Leaders of the hard-line religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami, have declared that nothing short of a plebiscite is acceptable to them. Opposition has also come from leaders of the main Kashmiri political grouping in Indian-administered Kashmir, the All-Party Hurriyat Conference (though some of their main leaders were individually supporting the idea). During a seminar in Islamabad, some of the speakers said, "One after the other, governments in Pakistan had sacrificed national interests for the sake of their whims and fancies. It is feared Kashmir had been sold out, and the present-day junta’s problem is how to execute the agenda. "Another speaker said, "If the people do not resist, the sell-out cannot be avoided."

Those who strongly oppose the Chenab divide have their own logical reasons, which apart from emotional, are technical in nature also, and basically stem from the slippery nature of Indian adherence to any given promise. Let us consider the Indus water treaty, signed by India and Pakistan under the auspices of World Bank in September 1960 with witnessing and contributions of Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, UK, and USA.

Now Pakistan is an agricultural country. Eighty percent of its agricultural output comes from the Indus Basin. Pakistan has one of the world’s largest canal systems built much before Independence by the British. After Independence, problems between the two countries arose over the distribution of water. Rivers flow into Pakistan territory from across India. In 1947, when Punjab was divided between the two countries, many of the canal head-works remained with India. The division of Punjab thus created major problems for irrigation in Pakistan. On April 1, 1948, India stopped the supply of water to Pakistan from every canal flowing from India to Pakistan. Pakistan protested and India finally agreed on an interim agreement on May 4, 1948. This agreement was not a permanent solution; therefore, Pakistan approached the World Bank in 1952 to help settle the problem permanently. Negotiations were carried out between the two countries through the offices of the World Bank. It was finally in Ayub Khan's regime that an agreement was signed between India and Pakistan in September 1960. This agreement is known as the Indus Water Treaty. This treaty divided the use of rivers and canals between the two countries. Pakistan obtained exclusive rights for the three western rivers, namely Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. And India retained rights to the three eastern rivers, namely Ravi, Beas and Sutluj. Economically, Kashmir is of vital importance to the needs of Pakistan, producing all the timber for Pakistan and housing three rivers, Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab, which flow from the Kashmir region into Pakistan and control the agricultural growth. Under the Treaty Pakistan had surrendered her historic water rights of 25 maf of eastern river flow in exchange for replacement facilities from western rivers.

Now India has already started the violation of this only treaty which remained effective between India and Pakistan for half a century and survived the wars also. They are already building a Baghiar Dam on River Chenab, near Jammu, which if constructed would reduce the water flow to Pakistan by about 7-8 thousand cusecs everyday. Indians are also building Salal dam near Jammu on the same river.

They are also planning the construction of a dam on River Tavi (near Marala distt Sialkot), the waters of which ultimately falls in River Chenab. There are two canals taken from River Chenab since the times of British rule. The Zenbir canal and Partab canal (near Akhnoor about 20 kilometres north of Jammu) to control the outflow there was always an officer posted to ensure the extraction of a given quantity of water. Now India is extracting the maximum water it can without any regard to old agreed formula. These are all the violations being committed when India knows that Pakistan has the exclusive right of Chenab river. Imagine what will they do to this river if officially they have the eastern banks for them? And imagine how much barren Pakistan will become by losing all that water. In an area as arid and densely populated as the Indus basin, the misuse by one community of water of another, can be more devastating than an armed attack.

Pakistan fought wars for being persistent in demanding the implementation of UN resolutions. Now if that position is being abandoned, then obviously it is under extreme pressure but will India adhere to any new agreed formula? In all our history of negotiations, India attitude was persistently as follows "If getting everything, then willing for anything; If justice demands giving, then we are not willing". Let us not forget, it was India which took the case to UNO and promised the Plebiscite in Kashmir, now it is the same India totally against the UNO resolutions. It was India which grossly cheated on us on the Chemical Weapons Treaty. It is India which violated the sanctity of UN agreed Peace by wrongfully occupying Siachin areas. It is India violating the 50 years old Indus Water Treaty by building dams on river which is exclusive for Pakistan. Can you trust them for giving peace even if you forgo your legal rights over Jammu and Ladakh? Does Indians have peace with any of their so many neighbours? And if it is peace we are never going to have with India then why give in? Why not wait till we are in a position that Indians dare not violate any treaty with us? Yes we can change friends but not the neighbours, but if the neighbour has a history of stopping our waters when millions of refugees are dependant on those canals, and also has the history of sending forces to Dhaka to cut you into two, then the least one must do is to be extra cautious. British gave Hong Kong to China without any fuss because China was strong, same people refused to give Falkland to Argentine because they are weak! Japan is waiting for the return of her islands from Russia since WW II, why don't we emulate their example? Why don't we also study some more chapters on the virtues of Patience?