Maybe that's what it was like before, but now it's more like a midget and giant are ten feet away from each other, pointing loaded guns. The guns will probably hurt the midget more as it's a smaller area and will hit more critically, but it's still going to cause a lot of injury for the giant.
Oh yes, certainly- I was using the midget/giant scenario when talking about Indo-Pakistani wars pre-nuclear capability. This is now another reason why neither government wants an all-out war. However, my point was more that even before both nations achieved nuclear arms, India never
really wanted to conquer Pakistan. Remember- India as a single national entity is a very new concept, less than a century old. India is, in effect, a single polity made up of a patchwork of ethnicities- the wonder is that they've kept it going successfully (this is one of the achievements of the Indian government that people tend to overlook). The independence movement began to teach Indians to see themselves as Indians first and Malayalee/Bengali/Tamil/Punjabi second but the existence of Pakistan allowed the Indian government to keep developing this- "You might not like the <insert ethnicity> but as Indians we must work together and be ever vigilant against the eeeevil Pakistanis". This worked to help foster a sense of national unity- when Bangladesh rebelled against the Pakistani government the Indians were able to paint themselves as the white hats, riding in guns blazing in defence of Justice and Freedom (tm) which, to be fair, was actually pretty true in that case. This is the real reason why India would never really have tried to conquer Pakistan- it's much more useful the way it is. Plus in the post-Cold War world, it's helpful because it allows India something to compare itself with for PR purposes- "Hey Westerners, look at us: we're secular, democratic and can keep our country under control".
As for a total conquest, India is more likely to take chunks off of Pakistan and divide the rest into Baluchistan, Sindh, and a third Mulism rump state. It's land that India doesn't want, or need, and the "Pakistanis" there certainly don't want or need India.
Possibly but unlikely for the above reason- being seen as the aggressor is bad PR. India could have done this in '71 but a major invasion of Pakistan wasn't even part of their objectives- they did smash the Pakistani army and take parts of the Pakistani Punjab and Sind, which they then gave back in the treaty signed the next year. If they had wanted to they could have just brought up even more divisions and swamped the Pakistanis. There was just no point in doing something to antagonise the West and China (who were Pakistani allies)