I understand that's Pakistan's perspective. Indian perspective is different.
1. For Indians, most attacks have emanated from terrorists groups such as LeT, Jaish. There is ample evidence (according to Indian sources) about the presence of key leadership and assets in Pakistan.
2. India provided proofs of past attacks to Pakistan government and didn't see a fitting response.
3. This policy changed under the regime, where every terror act will be responded to by taking our terrorists (personnel and infrastructure). That policy has been implemented since 2016 (not just Pakistan but also Myanmar)
4. Pahalgam is the latest episode in the policy's execution. GoI attacked what it believes is terror infrastructure and made it clear. Pakistan responded as it saw fit, India retaliated we got ceasefire in a short time. Both people on India and Pakistan wanted "more" and a few were relieved that it ended sooner rather than later
5. There is no blatant hate of Muslims (as much few Pakistani members here would like to be true) - we are all Indians and being Muslim, Hindu, Parsi, Sikh etc doesn't matter.
Now did India violate Pakistan's sovereignty - yes. Did it have repercussions for broader geopolitical and diplomatic situation - yes and for once I think India didn't come up "Trumps". How much did it impact India is a matter of debate and also has a different answer by vector (economy, diplomatic, military)
About being "international clowns" - sure some might say that, I can say the same thing for Pakistan when the foreign minister agrees to being a "Lackey" of US or Hina Rabbani Khar or Bilawal Bhutto get "taken to task" by journalists.