Is the probe of the Pakistani Joint Investigation Team [JIT] scheduled to begin on March 29 2016  in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the Pathankot Airbase between January 2 and 6 2016, a shameful smokescreen?
Can this obfuscation tactic by Pakistan be blunted?
When is India going to tell Pakistan that the period of fun and games like 26/11 and Pathankot assault are over?
The answers to the 3 queries are in the affirmative with one minor caveat for the third – Pakistan can be told but the when isn’t exactly clear.
On 2 January 2016, a heavily armed group attacked the Pathankot Air Force Station, part of the Western Air Command of the Indian Air Force.
The head count of casualties were:
A total of 5 terrorists and 7 Indian defence personnel during the 4-day-long battle.
- The terrorists had allegedly carjacked a sports-utility-vehicle [SUV] belonging Punjab Superintendent of Police Salwinder Singh. Singh claimed he was visiting a shrine late on New Year’s Day close to the Indo-Pak border. Singh claimed that vehicle was waylaid by the terrorists clad in Indian army fatigues. He and two other occupants in the vehicle were overpowered and forced to get out of it, Singh added. The beacon-light fitted vehicle reportedly provided the camouflaged transportation for the terrorists to the airbase.
- Salwinder and his friends gave identical stories to the media before clamming up. The accounts received wide publicity in the Indian media.
- The attackers were from Bahwalpur, Pakistan, Indian authorities said.
- Reports added that the terrorists’ posse was a unit of the Jaish-e-Mohammad [army of the Prophet]. In mid-January, Pakistan reportedly arrested several members of Jaish-e-Mohammed, suspected of involvement in the attack.
The attempts by Pakistan to obfuscate the Pathankot Terrorist Attack truths are pathetically shameful. The tales trotted out by Islamabad – about inadequate evidence being provided by India have more holes than Swiss cheese.
The lies are also being spread by paid sections of India’s media – who are – perhaps – as guilty as the Pak terrorist outfits.
The attackers captured the Punjab cop’s vehicle near the border with Pakistan.
- If this was to be true, the border fence would have had holes or a tunnel facilitating the entry through an underground route would have been discovered.
- If either of them had been, it would have given the Pak game away.
- Therefore, the terrorists obviously came from elsewhere. The border is located far away from the airbase. So why should the terrorists go to the border to hijack a vehicle?
- Else, Salwinder Singh and his ‘friends’ were traitors who helped the terrorists. He was and perhaps is still being questioned. The simple method of separate interrogation of the 3 suspects – about what each of the three did to tie up the logistics of the cop’s trip to the shrine since the morning of January 1 2016 could have produced inconsistencies and thus provided the link to the truth.
- Obviously, therefore, the entry point into Pathankot was from beyond the city – away from the border. Such clandestine entries of Pak terrorists into are possible through Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives – into which nations Pakistani nationals can slip sans serious visa checks/restrictions.
- Incidentally, Maldives provides the highest number of recruits to ISIS from the subcontinent.
- Regardless of the point of entry, CCTV cameras all over the place could have spotted the terrorists lugging their huge amount of luggage enroute to Pathankot. Were such camera units checked? If yes, were there any suspicious movements of any person and/or persons noticed by anyone in any part of India? If the answer is no, should one presume that the entire law and order machinery of multiple states are blind?
The attackers wore Indian army fatigues, the uniforms fooled everyone. The terrorists easily gained entry into the airbase by surreptitiously climbing the walls.
- If this was to be true, one would have to believe that each of the terrorists carried around 700 kg of arms, ammunition and rations [including drinking water] to last almost 5 days. That is an impossibility number 1.
- Then one should also believe that the 5 terrorists facilely clambered up and down a 30-feet tall parapet wall lugging that kind of weight. That is impossibility number 2.
- If these two old wives’ tales are to be believed, one would also have to accept that the guards at the airbase meant to be alert 24/7/365 were somnambulating till the desperados got in safely. If that is proved to be true, there would be several court martial proceedings resulting in cashiering of several personnel. No such incident has been reported. That is impossibility number 3.
Pathankot terrorist attack is being linked to the unresolved Kashmir tangle by Pak envoy Abdul Basit. The separatists from Srinagar have exhorted everyone concerned to kick-start the stalled talks again.
UN Resolution Numbers 47 and 49 are clear about one matter – withdrawal of the aggressor nation – in this context – Pakistan as a precondition to plebiscite. Salient features:
Pakistan is to, first, demilitarize occupied Kashmir, which includes all soldiers, regular and Mujahideen, and religious entities they deployed in 1947. This withdrawal is to be deemed satisfactory by the UN Security Council body.
If the Security Council body is convinced of the above mentioned demilitarisation by Pakistan, India is to then demilitarise as well. However, the council adds India will be permitted to leave behind, in Kashmir, a limited security force to defend itself against potential Pakistani aggression.
Conditional to the Security Council’s satisfaction of steps 1 and 2, a plebiscite will be held and the Kashmiri people will decide their fate, India, Freedom or Pakistan.
In a nutshell, Pakistan can no longer call Kashmir an unresolved issue anymore. What is left is purely and simply terrorism.
What else is there to talk about?
Well there is one matter to discuss and it has to be put forth to Pakistan’s democratically elected political boss Nawaz Sharif.
The democratically elected Government of India is empowered under its Constitution’s Article 369 as follows:
Temporary power to Parliament to make laws with respect to certain matters in the State List as if they were matters in the Concurrent List
Its clause [b] adds carefully that such temporary power to Parliament concerns matters pertaining to offences against laws whose jurisdiction are subject to powers of all courts except the Supreme Court with respect to any of those matters
“Those matters” are enumerated vide Article 370 that concern the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.
Explanation: For the purpose of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja’s Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948
Article 370 Clause 3 reads:
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify
India’s Concurrent List of 52 items includes:
- Criminal law, including all matters included in the Indian Penal Code at the commencement of this Constitution but excluding offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in List I or List II and excluding the use of naval, military or air forces or any other armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power.
- Criminal procedure, including all matters included in the Code of Criminal Procedure at the commencement of this Constitution.
- Preventive detention for reasons connected with the security of a State, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community; persons subjected to such detention
- Actionable wrongs
The two gentlemen with the second name Sharif – the first names being – Nawaz and Raheel – Pak President and the Pak army boss respectively – have to be clearly told the following:
Terrorist acts on the part of Pakistan within the Union of India violate several sections of the Indian Constitution’s Concurrent List.
Acts by Pakistani terrorists have violated Indian laws and challenged the majesty of the Indian state several times. Such incidents have taken place within the borders of India [examples Mumbai 26/11 and Pathankot in January 2016] and beyond the borders of India on Indians and Indian establishments have been recorded [example attacks on Indian diplomatic missions in Afghanistan].
The International Court of Justice and the International Law Commission have offered bold declarations in recent years which do point towards the gradual development of legal duties for the extraterritorial protection of populations. 
A simple amendment to Articles 369 and 370 would land Pakistan on the mat as India would be able to protect herself beyond her geographical boundaries.
Finally, after almost 3 months of the terrorist incident that originated Pakistan – admittedly by Pakistan – what would Pakistan’s JIT expect to find inside Pathankot airbase?
Is Pakistan planning to use the ruse to photograph or recce the place under the garb of this JIT?
Why are Indian authorities allowing this shameful exercise?
So, when is India going to tell Pakistan that the period of fun and games like 26/11 and Pathankot assault are over?
The five-member Pakistani JIT comprises the chief of Pakistani Punjab’s counter terrorism department Additional Inspector General of Police Muhammad Tahir Rai, Lahore Deputy Director General Intelligence Bureau Mohammad Azim Arshad, Inter-Services Intelligence Lieutenant Colonel Tanvir Ahmed, Military Intelligence Lieutenant Colonel Irfan Mirza and Gujranwala counter terrorism department Investigating Officer Shahid Tanveer.
It is also necessary to resolve all our problems, especially the Jammu and Kashmir issue, so as to put our relations on the irreversible trajectory of peace and prosperity. Cooperative relations are also required to address many common challenges including climate change and poverty, Basit was quoted as saying.
The concept of ‘responsibility to protect’ one’s nation beyond border constraints of nations concept has emerged over the last decade.
It has been unanimously endorsed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.
Numerous resolutions by the Security Council and the General Assembly have taken a prominent place in international debate about the protection of populations from mass atrocities.
Pakistan has attacked Indians in India in Mumbai, Delhi and in J & K.
Nations have a responsibility to protect their own populations from mass atrocities—specifically from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Pakistan is indulging in all these through its repeated acts.
The duty of every nation to protect its populace is deeply embedded in existing international law.
This part is well established in a range of universal and regional human rights conventions, and is clearly endorsed in the General Assembly’s 2005 World Summit Agreement.
No state today denies this duty.
Even those states most wary of the ‘responsibility to protect’ concept, such as Venezuela, Cuba, Myanmar, Nicaragua and Sudan, have readily accepted this ‘duty’.
In March 2011, P5 nations China and Russia have agreed to allow the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1973 authorising the use of ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians from the threat of mass atrocities with reference to Libya.
There remains little doubt today that the Council has the legal right to authorise both non-forcible and forcible interventions to enforce the protection of populations in those instances where it agrees to do so.
In short, the notion that states have an obligation to protect their own populations from mass atrocities.
Bystander states or the ‘international community’ have a collective responsibility to assist host states in protecting their populations and to act to protect these populations in situations where the host state is manifestly failing to do so.