Accepting LOC as IB doesn't mean Pak was wrong...it just mean Pak gives up the demand for plebiscite. It is rather India that lays claim to Kashmir based on the Instrument of Accession. India would also look just as bad in front of Indians by giving up it's claim on Kashmir as Pak would look to Pakistanis giving up demand for a plebiscite.
I think Indians are happy if the status quo at the border became a permanent settlement. When have we made any attempts to invade your side of Kashmir? If Pakistan settles for the LOC, so would we.
And as for the terror attacks...
How can it be always the case that when terror attacks happen in India, Pak is for sure responsible. When they happen in Pak, India is for sure innocent?
Please understand that this kind of equivalence does not work. It is not taken for granted in all situations that all parties involved are engaging in the same activity. If Pakistan is doing it then so must India. Really? So by that reasoning the allies must also have been running concentration camps, and NATO must also have been conducting ethnic pogroms in Yugoslavia. Fact is, there are plenty of examples where only one side is either the aggressor or has defied acceptable state practice. I really don't know from where PDF members get the idea that all countries run sprawling terror camps and fund terror groups. That is just one of the geo-strategic moves a country can make, and not the only one. Just because Pakistan, US and some other countries chose it does not mean the whole world does it all the time.
U guys say that those terror attacks in Pak are due to Pak propping up terrorist outfits. Then if they are that out of control of Pak that they attack Pak itself. How does Pak convince them to attack India then? Also if they have gone out of Pak's control where do they keep getting the funds, weaponry, and training to continue attacking Pak? R u suggesting that Pak is still financing them to keep attacking Pak? Then spending additional money to fight them(Zarb-e-Azab)? This flies in the face of logic.
The terrorist organizations in Pakistan are not a monolithic entity. LeT and JuD are India-centric, whereas the Haqqani network, while not being India centric, was also involved in attacks on Indian assets in Afghanistan. Of these, the Pak Army has only moved against the Haqqani network to a very limited extent under Zarb e Azb, and now that the Haqqani network has fractured, undoubtedly one part of it will continue its previous activities.
Of the other organizations, there has been no action against any. Sartaj Aziz in a 2014 interview to BBC specifically mentioned that Pakistan does not target Afghan Taliban or Haqqani network as they do not threaten the security of Pakistan. Now how is anyone supposed to react to such news?
As for the response of Pakistan to terrorism, again, we are referring to different institutions. There is the government, then the military/intelligence network, and civil society. I am certain most of Pakistan government and civil society opposes these terror organizations, just as any other sane person would.
However, what about the Pakistani deep state? Will it be the first instance where a deep state has followed a path which makes little practical sense in the present day? The American security apparatus has maintained its fixation and hostility towards Russia, long after the Cold War. To the extent that it has impaired their ability to counter a rising China. Has that made them reconsider the folly of engaging Russia everywhere long after they have become a second rate power?
Countering India through assymetric means is a pillar of Pakistani security policy. It would be beneficial to both if this stopped being so. But the problem with the military intelligence community is that they tend to exist for their own sake, unless under tight civilian control.
What is most amazing that after every major terror attack, Pakistanis turn towards their Army for rescue. Instead for rage and seething anger upon the people who have caused this situation, they are hailed as heroes. All too much to handle, really.
The groups that are targeting Pakistan are definitely not being funded and armed by Pakistan. So where does their funding come from? It's not like Pakistan has thousands of enemies. The answer is obvious. Ur own politicians have admitted to engaging in a proxy war with Pakistan. Come on mate, this whole holier than thou approach doesn't work in reality.
Ever since the Afghan War, a sophisticated network of funding for such activities has evolved. Do not think that state funding is all they have. Narcotics, arms smuggling, counterfeiting, they are all means of independent funding for these organizations. Do some research into the reasons behind Karachi's problem with heroine addiction, you will get the picture.
Then of course there are people like Hafiz Saeed, who raises money for "charity" from normal people. And finally, how can we forget the glorious role for Saudis and Qataris, who show equal zeal for investment in football clubs and terror organizations? For any anti-Shia or anti-Sufi attacks, you have to look no further.
If u r still going to believe that India does no such thing then u r essentially saying that Pak can carry out terrorist attacks in India and India just takes it, letting it's citizens die with no response.
Who says there is no response from us? But the response is not the type you think. Because our version involves diplomatic offensive and making the cost of military escalation unacceptable. Just as the Pakistani security apparatus intends to bleed us through the war of thousand cuts, we intend to bleed them through a regime of de facto isolation where apart from maintaining diplomatic presence, Pakistan has no relations with most countries.
You think that today all South Asian countries are on India's side by accident? You think it is just a coincidence that when Nawaz Sharif mentioned Kashmir in UNGA, he was met with silence?
What were Operation Parakram and subsequent cold start doctrine? Simply means of ensuring that Pak Army stays mobilized forever and this bleeds your country's coffers. Apart from bravado, ask any military personnel you know as to how long Pak Army can maintain a posture on the eastern border if India mobilizes once again. The aim is not to go to war, it is simply to leech your very limited resources as and when we feel like.
The reality is that all countries engage in this kind of dirty game. The difference is Pakistanis own it and Indians deny it.
As long as you keep believing that against all evidence, nothing will change. If we deny then it is for Pakistan to prove. The existence of spies does not prove that. The existence of intelligence personnel in the consulates in Afghanistan does not prove that.
What proves it is if after a terror attack, a clear forensic trail can be established to the handlers in India. Then foolishness like Sartaj Aziz waving around a meaningless dossier will stop and we will also get some stick from the world.
Of course, we may choose to simply ignore the fact that everyone knows we sponsor terror, just as Pakistanis have chosen to do for decades.
