Is this good governance?

The disturbing events beginning March 24 yet again shook peoples' confidence in the government's priorities, perceptive abilities, and pre-emptive strategies; together these failures reflect the importance it attaches to its own image as well as that of Pakistan, which raises a big question mark over the incumbent regime's right to govern.
On March 3, Kulbhushan Yadav, a RAW official was arrested by Pakistani authorities while entering Pakistan via Chaman on the Pak-Iran border, and on March 24, the ISPR formally announced his arrest. Thereafter, this RAW official confirmed the fears Pakistan has repeatedly expressed about India's decades-long efforts to destabilise Pakistan.
That this is India's long-desired aim was exposed by Prime Minister Modi on his first visit to Bangladesh where he proudly recalled the role India's intelligence agencies and armed forces played in fuelling separatism in the former East Pakistan for breaking-up Pakistan; doing so, surely he embarrassed Bangladeshi "freedom fighters", but not their tactless pro-India Prime Minister.
That destabilising Pakistan is India's prime objective is proved by the terrorist attacks on Pakistan's air and naval bases, military academies, airports, hotels, schools, parks, pilgrim convoys, passenger buses, and targeted killing of its law enforcers e.g. Superintendent of Police Chaudhry Aslam; Yadav only confirmed the ongoing pursuit of this objective.
These incidents triggered a slide in Pakistan's risk rating and pushed-up the risk cost included in deals with Pakistani entities, which weakened its industry's competitiveness. Besides, foreign entities (including IMF officials) now insist on meeting their Pakistani counter-parts in Dubai - trends that indicate India's success in steadily isolating Pakistan.
According to Yadav - a serving commander in the Indian Navy and now working with RAW - he heads a RAW network thatis tasked with breaking-up Pakistan by funding religious and ethnic parties to fuel divisive tendencies in Karachi, arming and funding terrorist groups in Balochistan that claim being "liberation movements", and is now tasked to disrupt the mega CPEC project.
Despite Yadav's disclosures, neither Pakistan's Prime Minister nor its Defence Minister felt obliged to lodge protests with their Indian counterparts, let alone announce a strategy for mustering global support to penalise India (desperate to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council) for the grave violation of international laws portrayed by RAW's activities in Pakistan.
Besides refusing to confirm or deny the arrest of two Indians connected to RAW (serving in the Ramzan Sugar Mills owned by the Sharif family), Punjab's Law Minister insisted that Prime Minister's "silence" over Yadav's arrest was a strategy to "raise" the issue of RAW's involvement in Pakistan; he alone knows how silence over an issue highlights that issue.
Finally on March 31, a spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs disclosed that his ministry had informed the global diplomatic community about India's violation of international laws, and will place this issue before the UN Security Council's permanent members and the EU member states, to expose India's role in destabilising Pakistan.
Now that credible evidence (based on disclosures by Yadav) about India's organised efforts to destabilise Pakistan is available, the demand should be to impose sanctions on India, not just condemn the covert war it is waging against Pakistan. But the Office Foreign doesn't want being "influenced" by this "incident", and its multi-dimensional negotiations with India will continue.
The other sad event was the carnage perpetrated by suicide bombers of the Jamaat-ul-Ahrar in Lahore's Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park, which eventually resulted in the death of 77 innocent human beings. This tragedy reflects yet another failure of the civil law enforcers - the lot pre-occupied with security of the ministers, MPs, and government officials. Politicians insist that terrorism is an irreversible phenomenon. True but, to begin with, what were they doing when this monstrosity was raising its head? Did they increase the strength and augment the capacities of the law enforcers? Isn't it a fact that politicians need excessive security not because of terrorism threats but because of their mutual enmities in the traditional landlord style?
Until April 1, neither Punjab's Chief Minister nor its Home Minister felt obliged to speak about the Lahore tragedy, nor condemned Western media's biased reporting thereof as an anti-Christian terrorist act, although majority of its victims (thank God) weren't Christians. How this reporting damaged Pakistan's image also didn't bother any government functionary.
The next shocker was the 4-day long "dharna" in Islamabad's D-Chowk by the supporters of Mumtaz Qadri who was hanged after being convicted for killing the Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer. Blocking of the D-Chowk freezes the federal capital. Yet it was "allowed", although it tarnished the country's already blurred image. The Federal Interior Minister insists that permission to observe the Chehlum in Rawalpindi's Liaquat Bagh was given on Sunni Tehrik's assurance that its supporters will disperse after the Asar prayers. However, despite Federal Interior Ministry's warning about the doubtful credibility of this assurance, the Punjab government did not pre-empt the procession's reaching the D-Chowk.
Supporters of the ST not only blocked the D-Chowk for four days but also damaged vehicles, buildings, and the Metro Bus station near the D-Chowk. And after doing all this during their 4-day "dharna", they vacated the D-Chowk jubilantly because their demands were accepted by the Federal Ministers for Railways and Finance, not the Interior Minister.
One of these demands sought review of the cases against Barelvi clerics. Oddly though, after the meeting between ST's leaders and Federal Ministers for Railways and Finance, while the Federal Interior Minister denied the existence of a "written" agreement with the ST, he confirmed the terms ST claims to be part of that agreement.
Coming in the backdrop of delaying a much-needed army operation against Punjab-based extremist and terrorist outfits, the relaxation promised to the ST exposed the PML-N regime's fear that an army operation could weaken its hold on its power bastion - the Punjab. Doesn't this imply clinging to power and reaping the benefits thereof at the cost of Pakistan's stability?
Besides this key question, there are many other unanswered questions. Was Mumtaz Qadri's Chehlum allowed to become a life disrupting event in Karachi, Rawalpindi and Islamabad to shift public focus away from Yadav's shocking disclosures? Or did it reflect an expanding gulf between the Sharif brothers, and Shahbaz Sharif's show of his muscle power?
Was it prudent on the part of the Foreign Office to publish the contents of its letter addressed to Iran's Foreign Ministry asking for detailed investigation into the Yadav affair, and a possible RAW network in Iran? Didn't this embarrass Iran, and won't it dilute Iran's cooperation on this issue? Put together, does all these gaffes manifest PML-N's claimed "good governance" of the state?