No it doesn't, dissimilar comparisons. And there's nothing going on in Afghanistan.
And how so?
What are the charges against Pakistan?
1. Support for the Kashmiri freedom movement in internationally recognized disputed territory, which you call terrorism.
2. Support for the Taliban regime in attempting to have a favorable dispensation in Afghanistan.
What are the charges against India?
1. Support for the East Pakistan separatists, which I consider terrorism, reciprocating your charge against the Kashmiri freedom fighters.
2. Creation and support of the LTTE against a sovereign Sri Lankan government - the repercussions from that spot of adventurism are for everyone to see.
3. Support for the Northern Alliance warlords, to stop Pakistan from gaining a favorable regime in Afghanistan and increase Indian influence.
I clearly see India using 'terrorism as an instrument of state policy here' - if not, then I fail to see how you can make that charge against Pakistan.
The problem is that belief you have that India's sht doesn't stink. As I suggested to Malay, get off your self-righteous high horse and accept the fact that India has its own skeletons and 'employment of terrorism as an instrument of state policy' - that has been clearly illustrated. no matter how much you attempt to obfuscate the issue by pontificating over minutiae in each instance of Indian adventurism so as to make it appear 'not terrorism', distinct from the policies pursued by Pakistan.
The evidence suggests just that.. lower LoC crossings and infiltrations. I am unable to come to the same conclusion as you at this point.
The evidence is clear, I am not sure what significantly lower LoC infiltration, and no more assitance by the PA (in terms of the alleged covering fire) and reduced attacks mean other than the fact that Pakistan has helped to almost eliminate the insurgency.
The difference in the insurgency - pre 2002 compared to post 2002 - is remarkable.
And these changes coincide with the new direction Pakistan's Kashmir policy took after 2002, and is bolstered by the fact that the military establishment (through Musharraf) and the political leadership have all supported the general position espoused by Musharraf - dialog and compromise over Kashmir.
It really can't get any clearer then this - changes in both the political rhetoric and significant changes on the ground in the actual insurgency. I think there is an inability to deal with Pakistan without a sense of moral superiority, and acknowledging Pakistan's contributions to peace and India's flaws denies that sense of moral superiority.