AFTER days of official comment and frenzied speculation, the India-Pakistan relationship appears to have gone quiet once again, at least officially and publicly. That is an unwelcome lapse into old habits.

There are two things that the two countries need immediately: one, an expedited investigation into the full contours of the Pathankot air force base attack; and two, the initiation of the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue.

Three weeks from the Pathankot attack, India ought to have completed its initial investigations and Pakistan ought to have done the same.

This, then, is the time for the two countries to try and jointly piece together the details of the attack — and find the collaborators who exist on both sides of the border.

In Pakistan, the symbolic closure of some centres and madressahs affiliated with the outlawed Jaish-e-Mohammad is simply not enough.

Had the Pathankot attackers been able to kill or injure more individuals or had aircraft been damaged, the crisis would have been of far greater magnitude. It is evident that spectacular carnage was the militants’ real intention.

For precisely that reason, the Pathankot investigations, both in India and Pakistan, should not be allowed to drift towards inconclusiveness.

As for the CBD, what is the point to dialogue when an episode like Pathankot cannot be dealt with inside the proposed framework?

The broadened CBD, which has added two issues to the eight baskets in the Composite Dialogue, covers counterterrorism, peace and security and even confidence-building measures.

The Pathankot investigations and India-Pakistan cooperation regarding them could surely fit into one of those categories. Initiating the CBD would also set an important precedent. If dialogue is to be uninterruptible, it must be seen to be uninterruptible.

The national security adviser channel or secret communications between the Pakistani establishment and Indian intelligence cannot and should not become a replacement for true dialogue.

The very premise of the CBD is that Pakistan and India have disputes and issues to resolve that, no matter how important and urgent the terrorism challenge may be, go far beyond one, near-term incident.

Just as it is necessary to carry the Pathankot investigations to a swift conclusion and initiate the CBD, inside Pakistan there should be urgent attention paid to spoilers who have emerged in recent days.

Syed Salahuddin, the head of the United Jihad Council, for example, appears determined to make a comeback in the public eye.

This week, he condemned the partial crackdown on JeM — a condemnation that followed the UJC’s claim of responsibility for the Pathankot attack.

What is the state doing to address the trouble that Syed Salahuddin is seeking to stir up? Surely, the time has come when public assertions of responsibility for terrorist attacks in another country can no longer be tolerated.

Dialogue between Pakistan and India should be able to proceed in a climate free of intimidation and fear.

Published in Dawn, January 24th, 2016