Are you seriously drawing a parallel between what some fanboys do on Twitter and that which is adopted as official policy by the Govt? Because this is what Pakistan did under PTI govt:
Imagine saying territories you never even claimed since 1947 are now yours and then making them official map of country. The fact that even US sought regime change in Pakistan for the first time in decades ought to tell you the kind of madmen in charge of the country.
You don't seem to understand what the issue is - its not about whether Pakistan should have nukes or not (officially, any country outside the P5 shouldn't have nukes, but that's not the world we live in), its about how safe they are in a country with near-zero civilian authority over the military, a well-documented radicalization issue within the ranks of said military, the control of nukes increasingly becoming decentralized and handed down to lower & lower ranked officers in operational roles in the pursuit of deterring conventional attack.
Pointing at India's nukes is not a justification for Pakistan not having a No-First-Use policy, having an opaque & nondescript command structure with no Elected Representative (who can at least claim to represent the public's interest) holding actual executive power over the use of nukes, so quite clearly its stated that their use of nukes will be as blackmail leverage in the pursuit of the military & ISI's offensive actions & designs in the region.
Is India stopping Pakistan from adopting an NFU or bringing the nukes under a command structure where one can be reasonably assured that nukes would be held in public interest and not as leverage against retaliation for ISI's sub-conventional operations i.e. terrorism?
It's easy to say "both sides are at fault", but a lot more complicated to look deeper into what the actual problem is. Look at the comparative track records wrt proliferation. Was it India supplying nuclear materials to Iran, Libya & North Korea? Officially, India has fewer nukes than either Pakistan or China, and yet India ratified a No-First-Use policy.
There's a reason why India was the only non-NPT i.e. illegal nuclear power to be given a waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to carry out trade in nuclear materials - its because of that track record. There's such a thing as being a responsible nuclear power.
---
Lastly, let's not forget the most important thing: Demonstration of intent.
India's nuclear program was started with China in mind (China tested its first nuke in 1964), not Pakistan. India tested its first nuke in 1974 and Pakistan only did by 1998.
There was a period of 24 years where India not only had conventional superiority but also was the only one with nukes. It was not difficult for India to start a sub-conventional or even full-blown conventional war against Pakistan and use its nuclear weapons (+ Soviet support) as leverage against anyone intervening in Pakistan's defence. How many wars did India start against Pak in those 24 years?
Zero.
Pakistan acquired its first nuke in 1998.
Just 1 year later, the Pakistan military (with the civilian government having little to no knowledge or control over their actions) launched a war against India and immediately went to nuclear blackmail as leverage.
en.wikipedia.org
Like I said, there's such a thing as being a responsible nuclear power, and such a thing as being "Exhibit A" of why nuclear proliferation is a major global concern. I know that there are a lot of people in other Islamic-majority countries that have a soft corner or bleeding heart for Pakistan because its the only Muslim country with nukes - but that doesn't mean one can say because India also has nukes, so everything is excused.
There are very legitimate concerns over the safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons - the primary ones being 1) the civilian leadership being largely a puppet of the military, and 2) the possibility of radicals, either within or outside the military's ranks, acquiring the weapons or at least nuclear materials which can result in a dirty bomb to be used in terrorist actions.
