Punjab terror attack exposes Pakistan's doublespeak

In a new worrying development, four Pakistani infiltrators walked through what was previously thought an impervious route via an electrified fencing, and attacked an air base near Pathankot. Although all the terrorists were killed, this was renewed evidence that Punjab has once again become an arena for spoilers seeking to derail the new peace process between India and Pakistan.
 

This route was used earlier to attack a police station in Gurdaspur last year. This was the first attack after Narendra Modi’s drop in at Lahore and just ahead of the 15 January meeting between the foreign secretaries of the two countries.

The attack is bound to strengthen forces who have decried ‘concessions’ made by both India and Pakistan in restarting the dialogue. It will force the two bureaucrats to raise the issue at their meeting, causing an avoidable point of friction.

But it cannot be denied that the attack was chilling in its planning and exposed a flank India had thought it had covered. It is complete failure of surveillance and security. How on earth could four infiltrators hijack a car belonging to an officer no less than a Superintendent of Police (SP), roam around the area for 24 hours wearing Army uniforms and armed with AK 47 rifles before they launched the attack ? The base was prepared for an assault so no major damage was done.

The attack will cause outrage in India but it should not be allowed to derail the conversation between the two countries. The outrage can be contained if Pakistan can convey in words that sound honest and sincere, that it is sorry.

Here are some questions to which Pakistan has to give the answers:

# The assumption was ISI was on board in the peace process. Could this attack have taken place with their knowledge? If so, have India’s ‘spontaneous’ normalisation moves been premature?

# Everybody had linked the appointment of new Pakistan National Security Advisor, Gen Nasir Khan Janjua to the fact that all the moves, including normalisation of India-Pakistan relations had the endorsement of the Pakistan Army. Is this not the case?

OR

Should we believe the civilian government and the Pakistani Army when they say these elements are not in their control?

The Pakistan government will now say: if this has happened, it is because of the festering sore of Jammu and Kashmir which creates the grounds for such elements. Really?