One way to model it:- India and Pakistan actually agreed to detailed security checks for the meeting, but India never made it public (strategic as it could have been politically uncomfortable and would have made future outcry impossible) Why security checks? Most likely Kulbushan Jadhav is a spy. But noway India can agree to this fact. Since meeting is the only possible contact, India would try to communicate with Jadhav, in whatever manner possible. Pakistan knows it and India knows that Pakistan knows (like complete knowledge in Game theory). In fact, both countries know that real game is to agree to security checks and even then try to breach them when it is in one's interest. Pakistan lost the PR battle when they didn't make public the agreed security checks right when agreement took place. India tried some communication, which rightfully got caught (not unexpected) (But may be some signal would have still reached to Kulbhushan Jadhav, we don't know yet...
Guiding light for the philosopher is the consistency or non-self contradicting nature of arguments. This blog attempts to see the issues under consideration from the lens of consistency and contradiction. The objective is to point out inconsistencies and contradiction. Sometimes, I might suggest a possible improvement, but it is not an imperative.