Over the years Indian politics has ushered in the era of coalition governments, where no party has enough political capital to get a territorial solution to Kashmir issue. So it is harder now than say 15 years ago.

Further, what is the US leverage with India? The nuclear issue could have been, but it was almost enough to topple the govt. without any mention of Kashmir. The fact is that U.S. does not have as much leverage with India as it has with Pakistan.

Finally, my sense is that the Indian foreign policy establishment was pretty suspicious of the Clinton govt. and Clinton may not be the best person (to gain Indian confidence) on this issue. Bill Clinton does not really have the larger than life persona for Indians.

Indians have been pretty supportive of Obama's election over McCain primarily because 1) his message of unity and change resonates in a country as diverse as India 2) Obama's pledge to deal strongly with Pakistan's support of terrorism was appealing to a country that has long suffered Pakistan's terrorist ativities.

However, Kashmir is non-negotiable and using it as a bait to get Pakistan to co-operate is definitely not a winning option for US. We may have our differences but when it comes to Kashmir Indians stand united. Kashmir is an integral part of India and it will remain so. And I take objection to the comments made by esblofeld. They are as ignorant and as hawkish as the Republican party in US.

If Pakistan wants to obssess about Kashmir and destabilize its economy further, that is their choice. As Indians, we will contnue to do what we have always done - protect our territorial integrity and focus on our economical growth.

"Perhaps most important, as President-elect Obama indicated to me a few weeks ago, a high-powered special envoy should be named--someone like Bill Clinton--to try to solve the eternal dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir."

'While Pakistan would love this, it will be a non-starter for India - they've firmly held to the position that Kashmir must be resolved by bilateral talks between India and Pakistan, with no third parties involved. This position hasn't changed in decades and through several Indian changes in leadership. The US would be well advised to stay out of this - there's a lot of downside and minimal chance at an upside.'

I agree. The last time boundaries were drawn on the basis of religion in the subcontinent ,millions perished. Nobody wants a repeat of that. Besides, Obama's objective is not so much a solution to the Kashmir problem as a segue from the unilateral neo-con intervention in Iraq to a more circumspect engagement in Afghanistan/Pakistan. A part of that approach is to build confidence in Pakistan that the US is willing to try a different strategy. Offers to mediate in the Kashmir dispute, I think, is part of that confidence building.

While Pakistan would love this, it will be a non-starter for India - they've firmly held to the position that Kashmir must be resolved by bilateral talks between India and Pakistan, with no third parties involved. This position hasn't changed in decades and through several Indian changes in leadership. The US would be well advised to stay out of this - there's a lot of downside and minimal chance at an upside.

Joe, I understand where you're coming from on this, but please let me give you a word of warning. My parents were born and raised in Pakistan, and I have been there a number of times over the last ten years. I know many of the politicians personally and am quite aware of the sordid state of affairs the government is in right now. With that said, providing any aid to a government run by Zardari is a HUGE mistake. This guy is the biggest crook in Pakistan's history and is the likely mastermind of his wife's murder (in Pakistan, recently it's being looked at in the public kind of like we look at OJ being "not guilty" in the US).

Since taking over I can almost 100% guarantee you that the treasury has been emptied and sent to Zardari's bank account. This is no different from the behavior of Zardari's only other real competition in Nawaz Sharif, who after being deposed was found to have tons of hidden palaces bought using government money.

The rest of the world is wise though. China, Pakistan's historically closest ally, for the first time gave Zardari a huge slap in the face by rejecting a request for aid. They know this guy is corrupt:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/world/asia/19zardari.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The World Bank promptly cancelled its 300 million dollar loan meant to shore up Pakistan's economy about a week later after this crook met with the IMF and did not make a convincing argument:

http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=58688

Musharraf's old party is already working behind the scenes to try to bring him back into politics to challenge Zardari and the PPP. Obama would be wise to stay out of this maelstrom and let this play out because the lack of support we're getting from Pakistan in Afghanistan is directly related to this internal power struggle that is still unresolved, as Zardari continues to bankrupt an increasingly unstable nation.