Conclusion:
A. India presented ZERO evidence for it's case, while Pakistan openly allowed international media and other groups free access to observe and come to their own conclusion.
B. Indian media while reporting publicly contradicted itself Sixteen times on the same event.
C. The reports by AFP. BBC, CNN and NYT question the Indian version of events.
D. The Indian side, reacted on such reports emotionally where chief ministers and media personalities acted all butt hurt and said/ implied that all these major media giants were doing "Pakistani propaganda".
E. For a country like India, which releases made up evidence, even for things such as "Pakistani ISI pigeon agents" it's quite curious that somehow the evidence of such a major event is kept from the public. Even after all the chest thumping and calls for releasing the video evidence. Nothing came to fruition.
F.This is not the first time India has made up some event in order to please the public and receive praise. Serving Indian army personnel were found guilty before of faking engagements at Siachen.
G. You say that the Indian media never released the exact points of infiltration, and Pakistan's ISPR took the reporters to random points therefore its a sham. Yet somehow when you quote BBC as "proof" you forget that they didn't know the exact points of infiltration either. So how is one international media organization acceptable based on that argument, while others are a sham?
H. A surgical strike in its basic definition, is an attack which results in damaging the intended military target while minimizing the collateral damage. As per the Indian DGMO, the military target was the "terrorist and their hideouts". Based on your BBC link which you use as a "proof", little to no evidence of the Indian military killing any militants can be independently verified. So basically, even if you use the BBC link to say that some infiltration took place, you still can't call it a "surgical strike". The reason, why BBC questioned your version of the story altogether.
