The question put to Mr Parrikar in parliament by a Shiv Sena
A Hindoo nationalist political movement that presents a resistance using the same nasty tactics to aggressive Islamists and that's a pain in the underwear to other Indian political parties...
member of the upper house, Sanjay Raut, was clearly meant to bait the government into giving a hard-hitting response.
A sensible response by Mr Parrikar would have been to state that investigations were ongoing. A more expansive response to Mr Raut’s question would have had the Indian defence minister acknowledging the role of non-state actors in the attack on the Pathankot air force base, but avoiding speculation about the link to the Pak state.
Instead, Mr Parrikar, who has earned a reputation for bellicose remarks off the cuff, went so far as to link all non-state actors, ie
The Indian defence minister’s loose remarks underscore the challenges that bilateral dialogue has to contend with: when dialogue is stalled, hawkish elements in both countries can and do casually undermine the environment for talks and make it that much more difficult to resume them.
Pakistain clearly has a non-state actor problem --
But from the very moment of the attack, the state here -- both the political and military sides of it -- has tried to respond to India’s concerns, vowed to investigate the attack, shared information with India and the public in both countries, and appears committed to bringing the architects of the Pathankot attack to justice.
Nothing the Pak state has done since Pathankot suggests the group to which the attackers apparently belonged has been allowed to operate smoothly. If anything, there has been an unprecedented crackdown on an anti-India group operating inside Pakistain.
Mr Parrikar and his fellow hawks in government must surely be aware of the steps Pakistain has taken, even if they remain suspicious of Pakistain.
Are the hawks then trying to convince their own government to reverse itself on its decision to resume dialogue with Pakistain? Or is Prime Minister Modi using his cabinet to put pressure on Pakistain without directly implicating himself?
The history of the Pakistain-India relationship is replete with examples of politicians on both sides saying one thing and meaning another.
Perhaps what is important for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf...
’s government, and the military establishment in Pakistain is to recognise that a drawn-out investigation into Pathankot is not in the interests of bilateral dialogue.
Foreign Affairs Adviser Sartaj
PrunefaceAziz
...Adviser to Pak Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on National Security and Foreign Affairs, who believes in goodjihadis and
badjihadis as a matter of national policy...
has yet again suggested that a Pak investigation team is set to visit India soon. Perhaps the two governments are close to setting a date for the foreign secretaries to meet too.
[Dawn] PREOCCUPATION with domestic issues over the past few weeks should not have prevented Pakistain's policymakers and informed sections of society from taking note of the dangerous events along the Line of Control in 
[Dawn] Bal Keshav Thackeray, 
[Geo TV] The