Look, ultimately, the issue was this: Pakistan's military leaders claimed that they landed successful hits on India, but could not provide as much evidence as the Indians did for their claims, and we're asking for that level of proof to back our claims.
Otherwise, we're just making claims, and when the lives of people -- from the soldier to the civilian -- are on the line, living off claims is not good enough. We need to work off verifiable facts.
If we're at a point in our defence posture that we cannot fiscally support the "wish list" we'd like to see, then yes, that's where the discussion needs to head, i.e., why we can't bankroll our defence needs.
Invariably, that problem will lead us to discuss the core issues affecting society as a whole, i.e., a lack of government/military accountability, a lack of tax reform, an over-bloated bureaucracy, an over-privileged benefits system, an over-burdened pension system, and so on.
I'm fine with discussing air power, but no matter what, every honest discussion on the matter will lead to the same questions, e.g., why we can't bankroll our defence requirements, etc.
