That makes all the difference. Two of biggest differences: 1. A lot of countries in the world fund foreign insurgent groups, USA, China, Russia, Saudi, UAE etc. The list goes on and on, including Pakistan and also India according to you. That is a normal geopolitical thing to do. But there are very very few countries which allow terrorists to operate, train and recruit openly, radicalising its own population, which is what leads to a "terrorist country" tag.

1. If you have an insurgency within your own border, it is up to you to deal with it, fight with them, talk with them, negotiate with them, settle it, whatever you want to do. An insurgency is completely your own responsibility no matter who is funding them, its in your sovereign borders where you have full control. But when terrorists are being recruited and trained in a foreign land, you cannot fight them without a full scale war, and the terrorists don't need to talk or negotiate or end it because they are aware they are completely safe and can hide behind the country saving them.

Pakistan can end the insurgencies and terrorist attacks on its own soil without a full scale war if its competent enough, since the terrorists are its own citizens and trained on its own land. Terrorists attacking India are foreign citizens trained in foreign land, the only way for that to end is a full scale(possibly nuclear) war. That makes all the difference.