To this, i have quoted Bang Galore
I won't bother replying to it as it is a massive rant, and i have already made rebuttals to all the points Bang Galore is alluding to.
1. Pakistan started off demanding UNSC resolutions to be implemented ie plebicite in Kashmir.
Then Musharraf came and he agreed to a non plebicite formula to which India had agreed.
Today even Musharraf's ideas are considered too radical and India will not consider any such idea, at best it is being considered to allow free movement b/w 2 kashmir's with no other change apart from withdrawing COIN forces. Pakistani leaders have started making noises about how Kashmir should be put on backburner. Do you see a continuous dilution in what Pakistan is willing to accept in its core issue?
Pakistan was naive enough to believe that India would honour the plebiscite, after all she was a young nation going up against the likes of a schrewd and a seasoned politican like Nehru. Lets be realistic here for one second, the reason why Pakistan changed its demand because it was obvious that India was not going to agree to a plebiscite as it was going to emerge as the looser. The other side of the coin is India has a strong force of 700 000 men in Kashmir armed to the teeth, there is no way the Mujahideen or the PA can evict them by force. Thus, Pakistan took the saner option and thought outside the box.
2. Trade. Pakistan started off saying no trade till core issue was resolved. Today Pakistan's leaders say put kashmir on backburner and trade. Something India always wanted as it will eventually give us great leverage over Pakistan. PA knows this as well.
No leverage at all, whatever trade India or Pakistan will have can be easily substituted. Trade was something that was inevitable between India and Pakistan. There were enough influential people in Pakistan whom were lobbying the policy makers to open up trade with India. This has nothing to do with pressure from India.
3. Pakistan wanted India to demilitarize Siachen, India wanted AGPL authentication before any other movement in Siachen. I hope you are also aware what many Pakistani commentators pointed out when PA did not want to go for authentication - that any such authentication if accepted by Pakistan will automatically give legitimacy to Indian presence and the lines it holds!
Pakistan is till calling for the peaks to be dimilitarized, India has said that its not going to happen. End of story, it has nothing to do with Indian pressure but the reality on ground. PA is not in a position to evict IA from the Siachen peaks just as IA is not in a position to evict PA of the peaks surrounding Siachen. Simple
4. India had opposed and stopped Pakistan from getting textile trade concessions from EU. It is only after India leveraged this and used as a bargaining chip for other issues that Pakistan was allowed those concessions.
This is too funny hahhaha, this is called give and take in international diplomacy my friend.
This is just off the top of my head. There would be many more.
Your more than welcome to give me some concrete and tangible examples, because whatever you have offered is quite ludicrous. All the actions taken were on Pakistan's terms, there was no threat of Indian military/diplomatic muscle that made Pakistan take these steps.
You just cannot stop a rising India from exploiting its growing clout. Pakistan will increasingly have to go on the backfoot.
I guess we will have to wait and find out, so far it seems India has failed to do that.
There is a reason why Pakistan's priorities has shifted to the Western borders. It is not by default but by design.
It is because of this GWOT, we were quite peaceful before that.
India is infact only 3.6 times bigger than Pakistan. Please dont choose the biggest variable you can find - in this case population - to justify anything.
The population is the most important variable because the population makes up the market.
Something Pakistan cannot keep matching even in terms of minimum detterence. Your minimum deterrence would have to keep increasing to match India's increase, but your economy is not growing at the same pace as India's for over a decade now to match it.
So far the modernization plan initiated by PA does the job maintaining the status quo. Pakistan's economy has only slumped since 2008 due to various factors, so that makes it almost half a decade where the economy has grown at a pace of 2-3%. The present recession is not going to persist for long, steps are being taken to improve the economy but anyways thats a different topic.
Actions have been mentioned above. While you are seeking a humiliating withdrawal or retreat of Pakistan against India, like how India forces Bangladesh, to justify India making Pakistan back down. This is only tactical and represents overwhelming superiority. We have not achieved that yet.
No withdrawal at all, so far the only person who has engaged in a humiliating withdrawal is you by bringing in hypothetical scenarios. The point i am trying to make is, India as a hegemonic power has successfully twisted and coerced her smaller neighbours to accept her terms except Pakistan. This is something which irks the average Indian and your tone testifies to this fact.
Instead i am showing you examples of how and where Pakistan is diluting her own stand on its demands from India. That is strategically backing down.
You haven't shown me anything my friend. Whatever steps that were taken by Pakistan was according to her own interests.
As i mentioned before. Your minimum deterrence needs to keep increasing vis-a-vis India as India is expanding faster than ever. However your country is not expanding at the same rate. The gap required for minimum deterrence levels thus keeps increasing for Pakistan.
Thats your opinion and i respect that but i can assure you that PA is quite confident of her chances against a military show down.
As i said before, Pakistan till 2 decades back considered minimum deterrence much higher than what it considers now. There is a reason for this.
Please expand on that with facts, i would like to know how your concluding this opinion. Pakistan 2 decades ago did not possess any nuclear weapons. An Indian breakthrough would have meant the end of Pakistan as a nation.
The effect of the billions spent is more than visible on Pakistan. Military might is only required in some cases. Our objectives are being achieved in Pakistan today without using military, but military capability increasing acting as a catalyst for our designs in Pakistan.
Wonderful way to justify this by making inflated claims, facts on ground speak otherwise.
Ofcourse IA is not capable enough to take out PA with minimum losses. That is why money is now being poured over it and it is undergoing a transformation - slowly. Where as IAF and IN today out range, out gun PAF much more than ever before. That is because those are the areas India focused on for the last decade!
If Pakistan was outgunned as you claim it is, believe me the surgical strikes would have happened Post Mumbai when the Indian public demanded blood. As i said before, nice off you to make these tall claims but actions speak otherwise.
And this is where you fail and fall for the typical Pakistani justification. Just because we have the military capability does not mean we will use it. India may do saber rattling, some provocations here and there, but India realizes war will set her back decades. India as a nation is much more economy and growth oriented than Pakistan. The priority in India is growth. It cannot be risked for war.
Hahaha thank you for proving my point, you have proved that perfectly after writing this. Engaging in excuses won't help you my friend, if you want to pretend to be one of the big boys than you need to act like one. It never slowed the other big boys down, your just making up excuses for your incapability my friend. Actions speak louder than words.
Instead, the same objectives can be met by non military means. Something that is being met in Pakistan. Today India is achieving all it wants in Pakistan without having to put its military even on alert status! You assume that India will attack the day it achieves the capability to do so. And equate India not attacking to not having the capability. India thinks differently.[/B]
Well no doubt, by engaging in terrorist activities inside Pakistan India is certainly getting what she wants.
You give India too much credit here. No doubt today Pakistan is just where India wants her to be. But the vast majority of the reason why Pakistan is in this condition is because of Pakistan's own actions - that of rearing terrorist groups on its own soil and even more importantly, using its own citizens for terrorist activities. You radicalized your own society to achieve what you thought were national objectives! You used religion - There is always a blowback! You are facing it.
I only give the credit where its due. India is only helping these terrorists with weapons and money. The terrorists we have interrogated have claimed that they are receiving money and weapons from Indians through their consulate in Afghanistan. Thats something we cannot ignore.
. 
However, such a close acquaintance with economic theory might also have informed you that India has one of the highest savings rates in the world. You might draw some interesting conclusions from this.
