In Pathankot case, Pakistan must shed old ways
India's wait for Pakistan's action against the perpetrators of the Pathankot attack is going to get longer because officials there investigating the attack have claimed that probe with the evidence India has given has run into a dead end and that New Delhi will have to supply more material. While it may be early to conclude that Islamabad is insincere about bringing the guilty to book, the script has disturbing similarities with Pakistan's past conduct in such matters, when it justified its inaction on similar grounds of insufficient actionable evidence. The bitter experience following the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack is still fresh in the minds of Indians. Pakistan had then simply brushed aside evidence we gave as fiction a piece of “literature”. Incidentally, much of this ‘literature’ had come in handy for US authorities to put David Coleman Headley on trial and secure his conviction. It may be recalled that soon after India had passed on material to Pakistan, including telephone numbers and calls recorded between the terrorists who sought to destroy an Indian Air Force base in Pathankot, Islamabad had acknowledged that New Delhi had given ‘actionable' proof and that it would be sending its Special Investigation Team formed to investigate the terror attack, to India. While that visit has yet to take place, fresh reports indicate that Pakistan is not in a hurry to act against the accused. As even a rookie investigator will tell, a great deal of evidence is sourced through the interrogation of suspects. If the Pakistani authorities were to grill the top leadership of the terror organisation allegedly involved in the attack, they would be able to collect valuable material. Unfortunately, the terror elements have been so far treated with kid gloves even when they were supposedly put in ‘protective custody' which is why they are openly gloating. Anti-India terror groups in Pakistan continue to have a gala time, with even JeM chief Masood Azhar all but free; his ‘protective custody' remains a mystery.
This is disturbing also because reluctance in acting against the accused can further delay the Foreign Secretary level talks which are supposed to lay the ground for the start of the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue. It will be difficult for the Narendra Modi Government to proceed with the dialogue unless Pakistan shows tangible action. He cannot be doing politicalharakiri by proceeding with talks with Islamabad even as the latter refuses to act those who are waging war against India. Similarly, Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will be seen as bowing to the wishes of his powerful Army which has nurtured and promoted anti-India terror elements such as the Jaish-e-Mohammed (said to be involved in the Pathankot attack) and the lashkar-e-Tayyeba if he does not act decisively. It will not just weaken his standing but also mark him out among the liberals in Pakistan as a Prime Minister who is going the same wrong way his predecessors took in failing to take on anti-India terror organisations head-on. But, since Mr Sharif has invested considerable political capital in trying to normalise relations between the two nations, he will have to demonstrate courage. He must decide whether protecting terrorists is more desirable than improving relations with India. Obviously, the two cannot go hand in hand.