U have written quite a lot of stuff about various topics that each require lengthy discussion so I'm gonna try my best to address each of those points concisely without making it confusing...hopefully. Here it goes...
I admit that I have no credible evidence to present in this case for proving that India is currently funding the likes of BLA etc. There are plenty of statements from our politicians and several reports in our media that make such claims but I don't think that is credible enough evidence. By that same token I don't buy India's evidence either where they try to link Pakistan with a terrorist attack in India by showing that the shoes he(the terrorist) wore were made in Pakistan or something else along those lines.
So I'm only going to stick with what has been admitted by government/military officials on both sides.
Our officials have admitted to supporting the likes of LeT and JeM and urs have admitted to supporting Mukti Bahini. Mukti Bahini carried out attacks against Pakistan and was armed by India. JeM and LeT do the same against India and armed by Pakistan. By saying that
"terrorism and espionage are two very different things", u r implying that India never supported terrorism inside Pakistan. It is a well known fact that India armed Mukti Bahini and Mukti Bahini carried out attacks against Pakistan. How different is that from Pakistan supporting the likes of LeT and JeM to fuel the Kashmiri separatist movement and their attacks against the Indian government/army?
"The question remains was Mukti Joddhas terrorists? If so why would Pakistan then recognize a government formed by the same Mukti Bahini's political platform led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? a simple parallel in example was Taliban - a known terrorist outfit, forms a government in Afghanistan, and nations that considered them as terrorists did not recognize their government."
Many political parties have militant wings. Whether a country recognizes their political platform or not is irrelevant to this subject. A country may choose to recognize or not recognize their political platform based on that country's interests. It doesn't make their killing of ppl justifiable.
"calling Mukti Bahini a terror outfit is not very convincing because they lacked most of the character traits of terrorist organisations"
Then what would u call the attacks they carried out against the Pak government/military?
Let's see who else is carrying out attacks against their country's government/military? Oh right Kashmiris...then according to u they also must not be terrorists right?
"They did not indulge in bombings of hotels or public transport in civilian populations in west or east pakistan unlike taliban, let, jem isis etc."
Wrong. One quick example on June 9, 1971 Mukti Bahini members hijacked a car and launched a grenade attack on Dhaka Intercontinental Hotel. There are many more examples. Not to mention the attacks/sabotage efforts against PA. How r u going to justify that? Call it a freedom movement? Well then if attacking the government institutions and army is not a terrorist attack and instead a freedom struggle or whatever then I expect u would be using the same terms to describe the attacks against Indian troops by Kashmiris?
"After the conflict they did not continue to be an armed organisations unlike Taliban, they did not indulge in repraisal and genocide after victory like the taliban or Isis, they abided by Geneva conventions and spared 90,000 PoW's of Pakistan."
So abolishing past practices after objective has been achieved makes u not a terrorist? That's convenient. Well then don't be too quick to call Kashmiris terrorists when they attack. Wait for them to achieve their objectives first and then we can decide.
"A terrorist killing pakistanis is a bad terrorist, a terrorist killing Indians in India, is a good terrorist, TTP, LEJ, BRA - Bad, LET, JEM, AL Badr, HuJ- Good Terrorist."
Oh look the pot calling the kettle black. If u see all ur points I countered above u will realize that u r also doing the same thing by defending Mukti Bahini. Having different definitions of terrorism as they suit ur narrative.
That is fine. It is an acceptable human behavior demonstrated time and again throughout history. U see there is always that differentiation as it suits one's agenda and a lot of it is based on which side won. Just like how Mukti Bahini is hailed as Freedom Fighters now bcuz they won. Had they failed they would've been remembered as terrorists and traitors. French revolution, Russian revolution and all kinds of other freedom movements go down in history as epicly heroic, remembered for generations bcuz they were successful. The unsuccessful ones are remembered as traitors, terrorists, etc.
The second big reason is that it is a matter of perspective. U don't perceive Mukti Bahini as a terrorist organization(u went to great lengths to defend them) bcuz they didn't rise up against India. But Kashmiris are labelled as terrorists by India for doing exactly the same thing. Why? Bcuz they stand against India unlike Mukti Bahini that stood against India's enemy.
In short one side's freedom fighter is another side's terrorist.
My issue with u or other Indians isn't that u don't consider Mukti Bahini at the same level as Kashmiri separatists(supported by LeT, JeM) etc. The different views are expected. I can totally understand why u guys would have different views on them. My issue is again that "holier than thou" attitude of Indians. Just like Pakistanis u guys also differentiate based on India's interests and yet don't own up to it...maintaining that we can do no wrong and all the fault lies with Pakistanis.
"None of the terror outfits operating in Pakistan, LEJ, BRA, BLA, TTP has any crowd funding operations, recruitment offices or any ground support here in India. But terror outfits operating in India find unprecedented support in pakistan, so much so leaders of JKLF, JEM, etc are based out of Pakistan.
None of Pakistani terrorist on the wanted lists find safe haven in India, whereas all the terrorist released from IC814 Hijacking are thriving/thrived in Pakistan, one of them went on to behead Daniel Pearl, and you as a common Pakistani having the cognizance of this reality want to equate the conduct of both the nations."
It is no secret that US has propped up/armed many drug cartels in various Central and South American countries...guess what? Without giving them a safe haven in US. Same for the Talibans btw when US was funding them, they were not provided safe havens in US. Their crowd funding operations, recruitment offices, etc. none of that occurred on US soil. So US must have never done those things?
There are many ways to go about doing such a task. It is not a requirement for a country to host bases for the organization they are supporting against some other country.
...and as for that last sentence since u brought up the whole equating the conduct of both nations...well let's equate it then.
Training camps of LeT/JeM in Pakistan
|__ Training camps of Mukti Bahini in India
Pakistan arming LeT/JeM
|__ India arming Mukti Bahini
What's so different here?
Yes they are pointing fingers at Pakistan for now but that has more to do with the West's current pivot towards India and away from Pakistan. It was the same Pakistan that helped create Taliban and US/Europe didn't care at all. They even turned a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear program for a while. The same US even threatened India. Remember that?
At that time Pak's bad actions weren't so bad but India's bad actions were bad actions.
But now that India is needed to balance China and Pakistan isn't that useful in this regard, Pak's bad actions are bad actions and India's not so much.
Now after that long discussion let's get to the important bit where u said
"If there is any credible links of India involved in terrorist acts inside Pakistan, I would be the first to condemn the Republic"
1) Now u have to either condemn India for supporting a terrorist organization (Mukti Bahini). Admitting that India has its hands just as dirty as Pakistan.
OR
2) Say that Mukti Bahini was not a terrorist organization and that their attacks against Pakistan's government/military are justified(insert some reason here). Label them as Freedom Fighters or whatever other label. Thus demonstrating the same differentiation between "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists", of which we Pakistanis are accused of.
The second option may seem more appealing, though be careful about picking it bcuz then Pakistanis can use the same reasoning to justify supporting Kashmiri separatists(or Freedom Fighters) attacking Indian government/military