Let me correct you Mr. Musharraf: (1) The Indian Muslims are not getting more extremist. No matter what you fabricate about SIMI, they are nowhere near a par with the Taliban in Pakistan. Nor have they ever engaged in acts of terrorism against the Indian state, preaching only a warped and distorted ideology of Islamism that finds favour with ever fewer Indians. In fact, since 2007, the SIMI is believed to be dysfunctional due to the fact that many of its members were demoralized or had crossed the age of 30 years. And in 2008, the Delhi High Court actually moved to erase the ban on SIMI, for lack of any evidence, a move which was stayed by the Supreme Court. (2) What the fvck is this guy talkin' about? So, "since 2003 until 2007, there were a total of nine drone attacks in Pakistan", yet "Pakistan never gave the authority to U.S. to conduct drone strikes"? So who did? My father-in-law? And if no-one did, the United States violated the country's sovereignty nine times, under a military regime, with no payback? (3) Pakistan is not on a par with India. Never will be. The dynamics, demographics, social ideology, the will to fight, not tolerate nonsense from our politicians, etc. are simply too different. Therefore, it stands to reason that Pakistan will be treated differently from India. - India went nuclear because China did, stupid. Therefore, the entire South Asian triangle is a cycle. You can be 'sensitive' to the point of being RAW, doesn't change the bare & naked truth. (4) The perception that Pakistan's military is prone to extremism is, because it is. The SPG is part of the military, raked and scrimmaged from some of the most elite, whose backgrounds are checked by intelligence agencies and who've been thoroughly trained to respect the writ of law (well obviously not well enough!). If someone from they, can target a governor to uphold a most ideologically zealot, outdated and ill conceived article, then anyone can. Now I know what you'll say about Indira Gandhi, her bodyguards and yada yada. The difference is, the Sikhs were not and have never been antagonistic to the world. (5) The Pakistani military have backed and created the insurgents the world fears, that is a fact. No amounts of ifs, buts and wells will do away with that. Yes, thank you for admitting you "were encouraging religious militancy". That is the nub of the problem. The same problem, quite piquantly, that plagues and destroys Pakistan today. (6) The mujahideen in "Kashmir" turned their guns on Pakistan, because Pakistan supported the U.S., fool. It continues to do that, because Pakistan continues to disproportionately and unilaterally support the U.S. Whether it is with the use of air bases, with the condoning of dozens of drone strikes or the free movement, kidnapping and picking up of 'Pakistani' citizens by blackwater agents. (7) How convenient! When it doesn't suit Pakistan, the shift from ideological to realpolitik! When it 'suits Pakistan's interest', the battle for Kashmir is ideological. When it doesn't, the Taliban are villains to be shat on. (8) Tactical management? When Pakistan is 'part of the 'coalition'', its deployment of forces will also be micromanaged. That is the price you pay for getting American weapons on the sly, $13 billion in (economic) aid alone in the last 5 years, and billions more in material and military aid. (9) India poses a threat because Pakistan views it self as anti-India, in every paradigm and form. Which is why, it has been led to start all wars (by the assertion of Pakistan's Air Chief Marshall) and foment terrorism in distant places, not remotely related to Kashmir. Yes, even "non-state actors" derive their support from somewhere. And it is this positing of it self as the arch-enemy, that has led India to view Pakistan as the arch-enemy. With the result that Pakistan is now in a far deeper shithole, by its own doing. - Thank you for admitting that Pakistan has indeed supported terrorists and jihadists against the Union. 'There was a time, when one could have said, during the '90s during the freedom struggle of Kashmir, there was tremendous public sympathy, dozens of mujahideen groups- Lashkar e Tayyba, Jaish e Mohammad, Hizb ul Mujahideen...were supported'. (10) Despite your political solution and Track II negotiations, what you call the 'success' of your diplomacy, terror attacks continued unabated happen in Kashmir. And so, the credibility of your word goes out the window. (11) How could the Kargil war have done anything but 'hurt' the Kashmir cause, idiot? The Track II diplomacy, which came after the Kargil war, sought a political solution to the Kashmir imbroglio. But, since the Kashmir war was all about taking Kashmir and making it 'azad Kashmir', the Kargil war could only have 'hurt' the Kashmir cause. - So, you can take your 'credit' and shove it up your ass. (12) The people have 'harked' back to your time, because the situation is now so dire, they see good even in the most grim. It was during your time, that you sowed the seeds of American dominance. It was during your time that you let out bases to the Yanks, let Pakistani citizens be kidnapped and deported /taken at will, it was during your time that growth was 5% because of your complicity in the GWOT that led the Americans to remove sanctions against you. (13) The Fifty years of the past, to which you compare your record, were dominated by military rule. Let us also, never forget about that. More generally: What's happened to his accent? He's slurring his words, like he hasn't spoken in a long while. How old is this coon, anyway?