For decades, the posture of the indian military, especially in the face of cross-border terrorism, had been one of remarkable restraint. Despite enduring relentless provocations—from the intense firefights of the 1999 Kargil conflict to the haunting memories of the 2008 Mumbai attacks—the indian armed forces were largely guided by a defensive doctrine. That paradigm, however, has undergone a profound transformation, marked by a strategic evolution towards swift, calculated retaliation.
This transformation wasn’t born overnight—it was forged in fire. One of the clearest turning points came on September 18, 2016, when four heavily armed terrorists launched a pre-dawn assault on an indian army base in Uri, Jammu & Kashmir. Nineteen soldiers lost their lives. It was a moment of national anguish, but also one of reckoning. Just days later, on September 28–29, the indian armed forces executed a surgical strike on terrorist launchpads across the Line of Control in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir—an operation that would redefine indian defence strategy forever. Read more on the BBC.
Fast forward to February 14, 2019—the Pulwama suicide bombing claimed the lives of 40 CRPF personnel. The shock was visceral. But this time, India didn’t just grieve; it acted. On February 26, the indian air force carried out a pre-emptive strike deep inside Pakistan’s Balakot, targeting a major terror training camp linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed. See the full BBC report.
These were not merely tactical missions. They signaled a doctrinal shift—India had begun to embrace precision retaliation over passive endurance. It was a message not just to adversaries, but to the global community: india would defend its sovereignty decisively, when provoked.
The Turning Point: Uri and Balakot
The surgical strikes following the Uri attack and the Balakot air strikes after Pulwama were watershed moments. These actions were not only unprecedented in scope but also in public acknowledgment. For the first time, the Indian state broke away from its previous pattern of plausible deniability, choosing instead to openly own and justify military action.
These events helped establish a new deterrence posture. The Indian leadership showcased that terror attacks on Indian soil, especially with suspected state backing, would not go unanswered. The strikes elevated the morale of the indian armed forces and reshaped public discourse around national security.
Strategic Implications of the Shift
The adoption of surgical strikes as a formal part of india’s military doctrine marks a significant tactical and philosophical shift. Some of the key implications include:
- Deterrence Through Action: By showcasing the capability and intent to strike across borders, India raises the strategic cost of future proxy warfare.
- Integration of Intelligence and Special Forces: These operations rely on seamless coordination between ground intelligence, elite units such as the Para SF, and the indian air force.
- Doctrine of Proactive Response: The indian military now operates on a more forward-leaning doctrine that emphasizes retaliation and, when necessary, pre-emption.
Challenges and Cautions
While this strategic recalibration has been widely supported, it comes with important caveats:
- Risk of Escalation: Strikes across the border carry the inherent risk of full-scale conflict, particularly in volatile regions.
- Diplomatic Pressure: While India received international backing post-Uri and Balakot, prolonged militarized policy could complicate global diplomacy.
- Domestic Expectations: With rising nationalistic fervor and media coverage, there is increasing pressure on leadership to respond militarily, even in cases where patience may be more prudent.
Conclusion: A New Normal for Indian Defence
India’s shift towards surgical strikes represents a new assertiveness — one that aligns with its emerging global stature and a firm stance against terrorism. This is not aggression for its own sake, but a recalibrated doctrine built on deterrence, precision, and control.
As the ancient Indian legal text Manusmṛti reminds us:
“Dharmeṇaiva hato hanti, dharmo rakṣati rakṣitaḥ.”
He who destroys others in accordance with Dharma, Dharma in turn destroys him; but Dharma protects those who protect it.
This guiding principle underscores India’s evolving doctrine — that retaliatory action, when grounded in justice and necessity, is not only moral but essential for national security.
At the same time, India’s long-standing posture of restraint reflects another powerful truth:
“Kṣamā balam aśaktānāṁ, śaktānāṁ bhūṣaṇaṁ kṣamā.”
Forgiveness is the strength of the weak, but for the strong, forgiveness is an ornament.
India’s restraint in the past was never weakness, but a choice. The decision to act now, through surgical strikes, shows that strength and patience can coexist — until action becomes imperative.
Ultimately, this evolution is more than a tactical adjustment. It’s a strategic recalibration that tells the world: India is ready to defend its sovereignty, proactively and decisively — with force when necessary, but always with principle at its core.
If you found this perspective engaging and want to explore more on indian military strategy, national security, or the evolving face of modern warfare—like, share, or comment below. Your feedback motivates me to write more on these crucial subjects.
Leave a Reply