To be equally honest, I answered the question put 'as is, where is', without any creative interpretation of the sort that you have used. If it had been put in your terms, I would have - and shall proceed to - answer it differently.
Well yes...I would rather engage in a direct discussion than going off on tangents
Oh, I can't? I can, but, more to the point, why mayn't I? Do you see no link to the morality of the situation and India's actions?
Again u gotta be careful when trying to present a FAIR reasoning/justification of something...bcuz the thing with fairness is that then it applies to all equally.
So first let's take this at face value that India intervened in 1971 for moral reasons...and so in a FAIR world, this would mean that...
"a country can intervene in another country's matters if it's for moral reasons"
Based on that above r u willing to say that Pakistan is right in supporting/arming the Kashmiri struggle in India just like how India had done with Mukti Bahini and other such factions? The atrocities that happened in Kashmir in the past and are happening now are no secret...and while Indian media may not show it as much(and u might find Pak media biased) there are plenty of third party sources u can find that have reported various incidents.
Secondly it still refutes ur earlier point of that
"India wouldn't bother with Pak...if Pak didn't mess with India"
Bcuz India clearly has done so in the past for various "reasons"...not just with Pakistan but also with other neighbors.
Junagadh, Hyderabad, Goa, support of Tamil Tigers against Sri Lanka etc. Now u can cite one reason or another like it was for national security or whatever else...it still doesn't establish India as a peaceful neighbor that can be trusted to remain peaceful.
When u start stating reasonings to justify actions contrary to ur claims...it's a slippery slope. There are plenty of countries who have used "justifications" to further their own goals and in some cases when no actual justification can be found...they invented one(e.g. Iraq's supposed WMDs). So while u and other Indians keep saying that India wouldn't be hostile to Pak if Pak wasn't hostile to India...but history proves otherwise. It's best for Pak to stay on guard and ensure it's security through sheer force rather than hopes and dreams of a world without conflict.
Incidentally, Pakistan has never been at a loss for reasons for intervention. Consult your record in Mizoram in 1965 and onwards. You will, naturally, note the dates.
And unlike u, I never claimed that "Pak wouldn't bother with India if India didn't bother with Pak". In the real world all countries look out for their own interests and that creates conflict specially among neighbors. Take any two countries hostile to each other and u will find that more often than not...they are neighbors.