Pakistanis and Indians are bickering over the audacity of Surgical strike. but how can come it be possible for a layman to believe which type of argument in. Actually both sides can presents lots of arguments to support their belief but for a rational, impartial and truth finder its not the arguments which can buy his belief but the facts and logic. so is there anyway where all the parties can be brought on the same page?
IMO, to gauge the audacity of so-called strike we need to focus on the future developments that are going to be occurred like suppose that India has carried out strike then why did DGMO of India stressed upon the very statement that" these strikes have been stopped and we have no further plan" this statement raise not only red flags but put across the signal of restraining and others like this. if Pakistan is wrong in its saying then there should not be further escalation by Pakistani side by infiltrating in India by sending terrorist, according to indian establishment that Pak does so, but if Pak is right in its saying then it would carry out such covert strike at the place of pakistani choosing where International attention can be gained because pak has got some idea by this drama, according to Pak view, that India is restraining and it can implement the doctrine of limited escalation to offset India`s actions in Balochistan etc.
there are other possible reactions by both sides to be carefully analyzed but for me this is very important because both armies have to respond to their credibility in their respective constituency which has been come into question.