The strikes came 11 days after the 18 September 2016 Uri attack, in which four militants stormed an Army base, killing 19 soldiers. The scale of the losses shocked the nation and demanded a forceful response.
New Delhi: On 29 September 2016, India’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), Lt Gen Ranbir Singh, made a rare and consequential announcement: the Indian Army had conducted “surgical strikes” against terrorist launch pads across the Line of Control (LoC) the previous night. Multiple camps were destroyed, significant terrorist casualties inflicted, and—critically—no Indian soldiers were lost. The operation demonstrated not only the Army’s operational finesse but also a decisive doctrinal shift in India’s counter-terrorism approach.
The strikes came 11 days after the 18 September 2016 Uri attack, in which four militants stormed an Army base, killing 19 soldiers. The scale of the losses shocked the nation and demanded a forceful response.
The Cabinet Committee on Security reviewed intelligence pointing to imminent infiltration attempts from launch pads just across the LoC. Publicly, the Army promised action “at a time and place of our choosing.” Privately, detailed planning began, blending intelligence inputs with operational options.
Open-source reporting soon indicated that seven launch pads located between 500 metres and three kilometres across the LoC were struck. Sectors named in Pakistani accounts included Bhimber, Hot Spring, Kel, and Lipa—all known infiltration corridors. While Pakistan officially denied any “surgical strikes,” it acknowledged that two of its soldiers were killed in firing along the LoC. Indian sources emphasised that only terrorist launch pads were targeted, with no civilian casualties.
The Government’s on-record position was clear: the strikes were ground operations, not air strikes. Para (Special Forces) units infiltrated the LoC under the cover of darkness, striking camps with small arms, grenades, and explosives. Each team operated with synchronised timing, secure communications, and carefully prepared exfiltration routes.
Helicopters remained on standby but did not cross the LoC, a point stressed by ministers to underline escalation control. The operation was completed before dawn, denying Pakistani forces the chance to react.
Though India did not name the units, multiple accounts attribute the raids to 4 and 9 Para (Special Forces), operating under Northern Command, then led by Lt Gen D. S. Hooda. The Chief of Army Staff, Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag, oversaw preparations, with the political mandate coming directly from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Cabinet Committee on Security. This integration of military planning and political direction ensured unity of purpose and precise execution.
India refrained from releasing body counts, describing instead “significant casualties” among terrorists. Some media placed the number between 35 and 40. Pakistan rejected these claims, but the key outcome lay in perception: for the first time, India publicly acknowledged cross-LoC action, combining tactical success with strategic messaging.
The strikes were a demonstration of civil-military coordination at its most effective. Intelligence from satellites, UAVs, signals, and human sources was fused to select targets. Operational secrecy was tightly guarded; diplomatic channels were simultaneously primed to counter Pakistani denials.
The DGMO’s measured press briefing, delivered alongside the Ministry of External Affairs, was itself part of the operation. It was crafted to signal resolve without reckless escalation—emphasising terrorist casualties, Indian restraint, and the absence of Indian losses.
Global media treated the operation as a notable shift from India’s previous practice of unacknowledged raids. Analysts highlighted it as a case study in limited retaliation under a nuclear overhang. Pakistan organised media visits to disputed sites to deny India’s claim, but the international narrative largely recognised that India had raised the threshold of its counter-terror response. At the LoC, heavy exchanges of fire followed, but escalation was contained.
The 2016 surgical strikes created a template for future responses. They set the stage for the 2019 Balakot air strikes and later cross-LoC engagements, establishing a doctrine of “responsible retaliation” in place of passive restraint.
For the Army, the operation validated the investment in Special Forces capability and confirmed the utility of precision strikes. For India’s leadership, it reinforced the value of decisive action tightly coordinated with diplomatic messaging. The surgical strikes of 2016 remain a milestone in India’s counter-terrorism strategy. They showcased how disciplined force, applied with precision and restraint, can alter deterrence equations without triggering uncontrolled escalation. In South Asia’s volatile security environment, the lesson endures: credible deterrence rests not only on military capability, but on the professionalism with which that capability is applied.
Colonel Danvir Singh (Retd), a military veteran, closely tracks developments in weapon systems and provides analysis on defence, strategy, and foreign affairs, with a special focus on India’s neighbourhood. A prolific writer across newspapers and magazines, he is also the author of the book, “Kashmir’s Death Trap: Tales of Perfidy and Valour”.
