You seem to keep evading one key fact - that it is you who is at fault for what happened to the Pandits, I'm not interested in mourning, I'm interested in preventing. What could've been done to prevent India from allowing an exodus in KAshmir? Kill Indian soldiers? We were already doing that.
There is a deliberate reason why I'm not discussing who's fault is it which led to causing of this war. That reason being every thread that I've seen on PDF related to Kashmir turns into:
"...oh oh, but you are suppressing the Kashmiris..."
"... oh oh, but you are fueling the insurgency..."
"... oh oh, but you are not allowing a plebiscite..."
"... oh oh, but a plebiscite at this stage is not an option..."
"...oh oh, but you violated UN resolutions..."
"...oh oh, no you violated UN resolutions..."
.
.
.
I'm sick and tired of the same conversations which seem to go on for ever and ever without any resolution.
The reason I'm talking to you is your warning/threat of nuclear war if a certain community of Kashmiris is harmed. Which brings us to:
The context of an exodus due to fighting and an INTENTIONAL genocide are two different things. What happened to the Pandits even happened in Swat - it was consequential, we can't nuke you to stop an exodus which you are not intentionally causing... what you Indians suggested here was intentional ethnic cleansing. We can nuke you to prevent that from happening.
Do you think Indians are so stupid to announce an ethnic cleansing on the world stage? We can always claim it to be 'collateral damage'. We even have precedent of that within the region when the other community was affected. And trust me, Indian media has much more influence over the rest of the world as compared to Pakistani media, as seen during Kargil.
So my dear, how will you justify nuclear weapons as a response to 'collateral damage'?