Read my post again which you quoted ... Where did I say INDIA surrendered ?So let me ask you if this party announcement means India surrendered...why doesnt it mean Paksitan surrendered. It's Paksitan pm and Munir thanking Trump for saving their country and nominating him for Nobel prize and even accepting to be the chowkidar for Israel. That doesn't look like someone who didn't want the ceasefire because they were winning.
And now comes to the bolded part. India achieved three things with sindoor-
Kill terrorists and show they have nowhere to hide in Paksitan
End IWT
Ensure Kashmir doesn't become an international issue and India doesn't get into a long war
All objectives achieved..so why not do ceasefire ..what else would we achieved...bomb some more airbases...risk nuclear war..get into an unnecessary war and tank our economy fighting with a beggar..we have a lot to lose...Pakistan has nothing to lose...hence hit pak..take negligible damage..end war and move on . Clear deterrence established...look at Pakistan now...blaming India for balochistan and Islamabad attacks but don't have the power or the guts to take on india..reduce to impotency...same thing happens to India..Pak will be reduced to rubble..that's what we achieved at low cost.
Now let's accept your logic...Pak has the upper hand. So what did pak achieve.
Is iwt restored?
Is India taking to Paksitan?
Is Kashmir internationalized
Will it stop India from punishing Paksitan in future if another pahalgam happens
Is Indian economic growth reduced.
Who said IWT is act of war...so what happened to that?
I said India initiated the conflict and had the upper hand. Why was the ceasefire announced by a third party, and what terms and conditions did India impose for accepting the ceasefire [having had the upper hand] ?
c @Bhaag Viru Bhaag @MP2011 @The Bald Eagle :Is my posted coded which Modi bhakts cannot comprehend ? If not , please help them understand my 2 basic queries .

