I completely agree with your post. So called protest from 50 days has not given anything to Pakistan other than Financial loss. Economy is in complete chaos and instead of economic reforms Imran and his party is hell bent to push it towards bankruptcy. I am not a fan of Nawaz either but if I look at the situation as an outsider then it is crystal clear that he is at least trying to make the situation better. So many projects has been started (all which I have learnt through this forum only). India is doing good but they seriously wont want a prosperous neighbor (with whom they have fought numerous wars and the issue for those wars is still not resolved). They would love to see Pakistan into the situation which it is currently in.
That is not really accurate.
As I said there are two views on what is better for India - 'a prosperous and globally connected' Pakistan
or a 'boiling at the right temperature' Pakistan.
Those who support the prosperous and globally connected Pakistan assume that the globalizing forces will pull Pakistan into the mainstream in which Pakistani polity and military will see more costs than benefits in continuing its support to Islamists and will therefore slowly start integrating economically with India and the World. The lure of profits and jobs will see the unemployment go down and consequently the youth will find jihad and Islamist agenda less and less appealing.
There are some correct assumptions to this approach and there is prior data to support some movement in this direction.
The second approach of having a 'boiling' Pakistan argues on another tangent. That approach also has its merits and has historical data to support what this side claims.
Ultimately, the way I and many others have read it is that Pakistan is a unique case in which there is prior historical evidence that suggests both sides have merit in their arguments.
You have to understand that ultimately our(Indian) final goal is to have
1. Stop any threat which hinders Indian economic growth
2. Stop any entity which can threaten Indian territorial integrity.
Our goal is
not removal or dismemberment of Pakistan just for the heck of it (what most Pakistanis are taught).
Both 1 and 2 are co-dependent.
Pakistan stops being a threat if either of the two approaches is successful.
Either Pakistan leaves its Kashmir stand and joins us in becoming economically strong by virtue of incentives and dis-incentives and global economic and administrative pull.
Or Pakistan is weakened enough/dismembered/rendered anemic so as not to be able to threaten objectives of India.
Both cases work for us.
So it has been the case that it comes down to the PM based on his political ambitions and vision. He will decide as the GoI itself has been unable to come to a definitive conclusion about which path is correct/better.
I hope I have been able to bring some clarity that there is no one 'Indian view' in GoI over Pakistan. There are two major views and camps, equally strong.