You speak as if we were well disposed against them when the previous, non-genocidal, non-maniacal, secular dispensation was in power. ISI engineered a heinous attack on their commercial capital when the previous dispensation was in power. As usual, we denied our role, and that was first time that I am aware we threatened them with nukes. Face it, we hate them and our hatred has proven to be implacable so far.
It seems the words of sundry other people like Hafeez Saeed, Zaki-ur Laqwi, Haqqani, etc. also carry a lot of weight in Pakistan. They are wanted criminals, and we should look at our own actions of allowing thugs like them a public platform instead of pointing fingers. In your world they might be "just normal citizens" of Pakistan. But if these are our model citizens then we should re-look at what we have become.
They say we violate ceasefire line unprovoked, we say they do it. Only one party complains of ceasefire violations to UNMOGIP to keep the Kashmir issue alive, which is Pakistan. India, to my knowledge, has not complained about ceasefire violations to UNMOGIP as part of a policy to not involve UN monitoring for decades now. Only one party has anything to gain by ceasefire violations, and that is Pakistan. Unilateral ceasefire violations would run counter to India's policy on not Internationalizing the Kashmir issue, whereas they would be perfectly convenient to our policy of making it one. Connect the dotted lines for the rest.
I have addressed your concerns in the other conversation. Kindly look at it.
Yes but I am slightly crooked. Even as a practicing advocate I could never learn the difficult task of defending the indefensible and always chose to side with what I saw as the correct position instead. It didn't make me popular, though.