[lupusreal]

> If India's going imperial, why would Pakistan bother with hosting terrorist elements to provoke a hostile "belligerent" (according to you) neighbour, and letting them attack a civilian zone

Underlaying this line of reasoning is an assumption that Pakistan makes coordinated, coherent, and more or less rational decisions. But Pakistan is run by the military with civilian leadership being a farcical fig leaf. They routinely fall into prolonged periods of martial law, and arresting former prime ministers is the norm. What's more, Pakistan's military is divided into numerous factions which are operationally independent and have their own internal politics going on.

Therefore, any analysis of the form "[hypothesis] is unlikely because it would be irrational and uncoordinated" is extremely dubious.

[fakedang]

Exactly my point. A single terrorist attack is no grounds for India going "imperial". India has always been very predictable. Pakistan on the other hand remains a volatile mess, and some rogue elements push shit like this once in a while. Except this time, the rogues are the ones ruling. All this does is make Pakistan a pariah state further. Even the Gulf states stood with India this time, when usually they stand on the sidelines and send mere condolences.

On a side note, the Gulf states being involved in negotiations pretty much means the end of the US as a diplomatic hegemon for the region.