About Kashmir, I can only say that none of our two nations is totally without blemish. The UNSC resolutions have been irrelevant for decades. We both know that. Tell me who in the UN still talks of them? It would be better to avoid a deep dive into Kashmir here as it won't come to anything.
They are only irrelevant to India because it suits her purpose - they have no expiration date, and they remain an almost universally endorsed means of resolving the Kashmir dispute. As a member of the UN, India cannot pick and choose implementation on what she desires. The fact remains that the Accession was to be subject to a plebiscite in Kashmir in case of dispute, and the UNSC resolutions affirmed that point, with the global community, India and Pakistan agreeing.
India blatantly violated her commitments under the UN charter, her commitments to the global community, and her commitments to Pakistan and the people of Kashmir by unilaterally undermining and rejecting the UNSC resolutions - everything else that followed was a consequence of that decision.
The point is this military capability of yours is not going to help in the Kashmir issue. So no point in linking the status of military in Pakistan to the Kashmir issue.
I did not make that argument, so I am not sure what your 'point' is here.
Many of the points that you "listed" are also raised by several Pakistani commentators too. I don't agree they are without basis.
It is not a question of saying that you value something, it is a question of making the choices that show what you value more.
That they are raised by Pakistani commentators does not make them valid points, and I have explained on each why they are not valid points. The fact of the matter is that India has illustrated militarily and through proxy that she is a hostile entity to Pakistan. That is without a doubt.
If Indian hostility, past and present, is without a doubt, then the argument of 'scam' or 'myth' has no basis, since the 'scam/myth' argument can only apply if India had never exhibited hostility towards Pakistan.
The question of 'values' is misleading given the above conclusion. There is no doubt behind Pakistan 'valuing' economic growth and development - if it did not/had not, then we would still be in the shape we were at Independence. Security and freedom cannot be sacrificed at the alter of 'development', however, and the existence of a hostile and belligerent eastern neighbor necessitates that those concerns be addressed.
Security, Freedom, Development - they all need to be addressed, and they all need to be 'valued'. It is not a 'zero sum game'
Not really true. Where else has India done a Gaza? No other country in the neighborhood has the same deterrent. We have had differences with some other neighbors at times.
This is highly opinionated without facts.
This is based entirely on facts - look up your leadership's statements on 'all options are on the table'. Look at their hate mongering and lies when accusing Pakistani institutions of involvement in Mumbai, the day after their own evidence dossier cleared Pakistani institutions.
Were it not for Pakistan's conventional deterrent, the Indian elections this year and public pressure on the GoI would have inevitably resulted in strikes within Pakistan, at the minimum, that much is clear.
India does not have the hostile relationship it does with Pakistan with any other neighbor, so that is an invalid excuse.