India has suffered multiple terrorist incidents, and most of them can be traced back to Pakistan. But India has pursued diplomacy with Pakistan. Pakistan has also suffered multiple terrorist incidents. And it has reacted by launching a massive military operation against its own citizens. Pakistan has not carried out coordinated strikes against individual terrorists or against terrorist training camps; instead it has forced more than 2.5 innocent civilians to flee their homes as it bombs the hell out of the northwest region.

Do Pakistanis really have the right to tell India to ease up on the terrorism concerns? I think not. My Dad also believes that Pakistan deserves a lot of credit for helping the US win the Cold War by supporting the jihad against the Soviets. First of all, Pakistan's role was minimal. Afghans did the most of the fighting and dying; in fact, they did virtually all of the fighting and dying. A million Afghans died resisting the Soviet occupation of their country. They should get the credit. Not Pakistan. Secondly, the United States provided the weapons and training to the Afghan mujahideen. The high-tech military equipment that the Afghans used against the Soviets (to devastating effect) were handed to them by their generous American benefactors. The CIA provided the training. The Saudis provided the funding. Why does my Dad believe that Pakistan is responsible for making America the sole superpower?

He also believes that the Pakistani media is too hard on the late General Zia-ul-Haq, a former dictator of Pakistan. He claims that were it not for General Zia, the Soviets would have taken over Afghanistan before taking over Pakistan. I said to him, "OK, if that's true, if Pakistan was facing such a huge danger to its national security, why didn't General Zia send the Pakistani army into Afghanistan to defend their neighbours from Soviet aggression? Why did General Zia feel the need to indoctrinate, train, and arm religious fanatics to fight the Soviets??? At least Pakistani soldiers can be held accountable if they commit any war crimes against a civilian population. Religious fanatics, on the other hand, are accountable to no one. They killed innocent Afghan men, women, and children during the war. General Zia was a coward. He was too scared to fight the Soviets. So he ended up making life hell for Afghans and Pakistanis by supporting religious extremism in the region."

But my Dad was like, "If Zia had sent the Pakistani army, then the Soviets would have attacked Pakistan." That may or may not be true. But what we do know is that the Soviets were totally aware of Pakistan's support for the mujahideen... and the Soviets still didn't attack Pakistan. Why? Because Pakistan was allied with the United States. My Dad said, "The Pakistani army is a state instrument. It would have been very serious. The Soviets would definitely have attacked." I told him, "But allowing mujahideen training camps to exist on Pakistani soil can also be considered a state instrument. Sending Pakistan-trained religious militants is the same thing (in Soviet eyes) as sending in the Pakistan army. And General Zia did send some special forces, paratroopers, etc. So then why was he reluctant to send reinforcements?"

The US is bombing Pakistan today because there are terrorist training camps in our country. It doesn't matter if the Pakistani government/military is supporting them or not. The fact that these camps exist poses a danger to stability in Afghanistan. If they were being supported by the Pakistan state apparatus, the camps would still be getting bombed. Why? Because Pakistan does not have any powerful allies like we did back in the 1980's. We could rely on the Americans to protect us from the Soviets. Who can we rely on to protect us from the Americans?

The cowardice of the Pakistani Generals really bugs me. I mean, if they are facing such a threat to their national security, why are they so scared to fight??? And if they are involved in a military conflict, why are they afraid of getting attacked??? Isn't every army supposed to get attacked in a war? If Pakistan is being defended by a bunch of sissies, why in the world do we even have an army??? Why are we spending so much money on our defense budget when these guys are such dumb cowards??? My Dad believes that Kashmir is the root cause of terrorism in South Asia. I am so tired of Kashmir. Pakistan has no right to Kashmir. No legal right to it. None. Pakistan's occupation of Kashmir is illegal under international law.

When Pakistan was created, the arrangement that was made between Lord Mountbatten, Jawaharlal Nehru and Muhammad Ali Jinnah was that the 4 provinces of Pakistan and Bangladesh would become independent of India... while the rest would remain part of India. Kashmir was not part of the original arrangement. Hence, Pakistan has no right to it. My Dad will say that Pakistan needs Kashmir because that's where our water supply comes from. My answer to that is: "So freakin' what???" We're supposed to conquer a piece of territory illegally just because it's rich in natural resources??? Isn't that what annoyed us about being conquered by the Brits in the first place? Then why are we acting like the very same people that colonized us for over 200 years???

Why should Kashmir be allowed a referendum on which nation they want to join? Did Uttar Pradesh get a referendum? How about Madhya Pradesh? What about Tamil Nadu? And Bihar? No, they joined India because that was the arrangement. Anything else would have been illegal! And the fact that Kashmir has a majority Muslim population is totally irrelevant. Bangladesh has a majority Muslim population, and it chose to secede from Pakistan, and that was back in 1971... when Pakistan was still kind of a viable state. I seriously doubt Kashmiris would want to join a failed state like the Pakistan of today.