Given the forum from which the allegation has emanated, it cannot -- nor should it -- be easily dismissed. For years, Pakistain and India have traded accusations about RAW and ISI fomenting trouble in each other's vulnerable and unstable regions.
Inside Pakistain, there has been a consistent set of allegations that Fata, Balochistan
...the Pak province bordering Kandahar and Uruzgun provinces in Afghanistan and Sistan Baluchistan in Iran. Its native Baloch propulation is being displaced by Pashtuns and Punjabis and they aren't happy about it...
and Bloody Karachi
...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous...
have been the area of particular focus of the Indian intelligence apparatus.
With a political and security transition in Afghanistan well under way, Iran edging towards the lifting of suffocating US-led sanctions and the army heavily engaged in Fata, the regional dimensions of Pakistain's security situation are surely informing the army's concerns.
The principal question is where to go from here. A statement of condemnation by the army leadership is insufficient. Both from the point of form and substance, the next logical step is for the federal government to take the lead here.
Press releases by the ISPR are not a good way to conduct bilateral relations, especially with a neighbour accused of instigating terrorism inside Pakistain. Where the evidence exists, it should be gathered by the civilian government, assembled in clear and convincing manner and taken up at the highest diplomatic levels.
It is surely not enough for a minister or two to chip in with verbal condemnations of RAW and the Indian security establishment.
Sound bites and posturing for domestic audiences are not going to help keep Pakistain safe. There is an additional element here: the principal goal of the government should be to restart the dialogue process with India.
Where intelligence agencies may be creating mischief and stoking trouble, the only long-term answer is to try and restart a process that can lead to normalisation of ties. The seriousness of the army leadership's allegations notwithstanding, shadowy struggles between the intelligence apparatuses in the two countries should not overwhelm the broader need for finding common ground.
Finally, there is an internal dimension to the problem too: wherever it has been alleged that Indian involvement has been detected, it has come in areas long mismanaged by the Pak state itself.
Fata, Balochistan and Karachi have all suffered from the abdication by the state of its basic duties towards the people of those areas.
As the corps commanders' conference stressed, the key is to press ahead with the fight against militancy internally. But a militarised strategy will never work -- not in Fata, Balochistan or Karachi.
At best, it will cause violence to temporarily subside, as seen after previous significant operations, only for it to re-emerge elsewhere or in a different form in the same places. Ultimately, internal security is about the right internal and external policies.