This was proposed, and rejected.

Aside from the current Al Qaeda/Taliban issue, America has no other interest in the region. By contrast, American-Indian relations are proceeding along multiple tracks – diplomatic, economic, and cultural. Dealing with India is one of the few areas where George W. Bush has actually done a very good job. Immediately after 9/11, he could have done what earlier American presidents did – and that is largely ignore India. He did not do that. In fact, he was so ambitious that he actually lobbied hard for and got what always seemed to be a pipedream – to have India recognized as the world’s sixth nuclear weapons power. Obama is unlikely to roll back the nuclear deal.

Bush also managed to defuse a tense situation from 2001-02 by working backstage – leaning on both India and Pakistan to not escalate their rhetoric. He was the first President to publicly state there were terrorists crossing the Line of Control from the Pakistani side. And lest the Indian side get too cavalier, in spring of 2002, Bush ordered the evacuation of non-essential Americans out of India. By making it appear that war was likely, the onus fell on India to cool things down.

Kashmiris have been poorly treated by New Delhi – even people who detest Pakistani terrorism against India acknowledge that. But, as India’s fortunes continue to improve, it may well come to believe it can be more flexible in dealing with the Kashmir problem. But Indian diplomats are probably the most touchy in the world – so any initiative must appear to be indigenous, without the trace of an American influence.

India is not “letting go” of Kashmir – not now, not tomorrow, not ever. The ignorance of people who comment on this issue is really remarkable.It may come as a shock to you, but the first Prime Minister of India was a Kashmiri. A Kashmiri Pandit. Yeah that guy who was called the light of Asia by Winston Churchill.

Kashmir today is majority Muslim just like it was in 1947. How ever the land predates Islam itself. And it was a Hindu majority region until the mid 14th century when Islamic rulers invaded India.

Ever since its Islamic conquest, its ethnic makeup has changed. It still had Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists co-existing peacefully as Kashmiri’s are more into Sufi Islam as opposed to hard edged Sunni Islam – until of course India was partitioned in 1947.

The partition was the greatest tragedy to hit India in terms of loss of life, land, liberty and a bitterness that lingers till day. India never came grips with the loss of 2/5ths of its territory and most definitely was not going to roll over on Kashmir either.

Every one in India knows that the Central Govt was brutal in suppressing the freedom movement. But this is so 1989. In the last 10 years, the State of Jammu and Kashmir has had peaceful and well recognized elections to its State Govt – it is perfect by no means but it stands representative of those people who are willing to give democracy a chance.

There is still an uneasiness in the Valley over religious and ethnic differences – this is to be expected. It is not going to vanish any time soon. At the same time, the Govt of India has bent over backwards to make sure that Kashmiris get special recognition in the Union – in fact, you cannot even purchase property in this state if you are not Kashmiri yourself.

Your comments about India not being a political fiction that wouldnt survive the end of the century are nothing more than a joke. Have you EVER lived in India? for an extended period of time ? India’s mindboggling diversity has withstood far greater challenges than mere territorial disputes. Where exactly do people get the authority to make such grandoise predictions on subject matters they know very little about ?

If you think India should let go off Kashmir, I am pretty sure that you would have wanted Lincoln to let go off the Confederate States too. As Ron Paul pointed out the other day, ” why not just buy the slaves” and then declare them free once they got into the North?

Or at the very least Lincoln should have called for a plebiscite to see how many Southern States wanted to be with the Union. Instead we got a bloody war that tore this nation apart, left gaping wounds that have taken centuries to come close to healing.

And yet you are asking India to “let go off” Kashmir. Yeah, sure.

As for the goal of closing Pakistani-sponsored terrorist camps, that’s of course the goal of the Indian government itself, so I don’t think it’s a bad approach to take. Saying something is never going to happen doesn’t mean it can’t happen. What would lead the Pakistanis to do this? Perhaps some kind of governing concessions, as nyx says, in which India grants greater authonomy to J&K. The reason to involve the Indians in this is that Pakistan won’t give up its camps without some kind of concession from India. At a certain point its more a matter of national pride than meaninful policy, and perhaps an outsider can help diffuse that.

The Pakistani military is not going to give up on sponsoring cross-border terrorism so long as India remains in control of large parts of J&K. They have a tremendous ideological and political investment in this conflict; they have a vested interest in preventing resolution of the dispute. Pakistan is not going to concede its guerrilla and terrorist tactics against India while also redoubling efforts against the Taliban. Nyx is right that outside meddling is going to shut down the internal debate in India and push the debate back into a fruitless recitation of the old arguments about why Kashmir was, is and always will be Indian.

If the US gets in any way involved or tries to make India and Pakistan hammer a deal, the same predictable thing would happen that happened under Clinton. India would stone wall because no government can afford to do anything about Kashmir, especially under the watchful eye of foreign power unless it wants to lose power. If BJP gains power (which is unlikely), this question would not even arise. If Congress gains power, Congress would stone wall incessantly. At least, India forgave Clinton somewhat because it loves charismatic personalities. Obama would not get such a love fest.