After the Uri attack in 2016, where 19 Indian soldiers were killed by Pakistan-based terrorists, there was enormous public pressure on the Indian government to respond strongly. Rather than choosing a conventional war, the Modi government authorized surgical strikes across the Line of Control (LoC), targeting terror launchpads. This marked a shift in India’s defensive posture to a more proactive and offensive approach. The strikes were designed to be precise, effective, and limited in scope to avoid full-scale war, while still sending a clear message to Pakistan that India would no longer remain passive in the face of cross-border terrorism.
Similarly, in the Pathankot attack, which also occurred in 2016 and targeted an Indian Air Force base, India took a cautious approach. Though it was a serious breach, the response focused on intelligence coordination, improving base security, and continued diplomatic pressure on Pakistan. At the time, India was still trying to engage Pakistan diplomatically while keeping military escalation under control.
However, the Pulwama attack in 2019 was a major turning point. A suicide bombing by a Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist killed 40 CRPF personnel in Jammu & Kashmir. This attack led to national outrage and a stronger call for direct retaliation. In response, India carried out the Balakot airstrikes, where Indian Air Force jets struck a major terror camp deep inside Pakistani territory. This was the first time since the 1971 war that India conducted air strikes across the international border. The move was bold and marked a significant escalation, but it was still limited and carefully calculated to avoid a broader conflict. This approach allowed India to showcase military strength while avoiding the catastrophic consequences of a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed nations.
So why did PM Modi choose to strike back with surgical strikes and airstrikes, but not go to war? The answer lies in a combination of strategic, diplomatic, and security considerations. A full-scale war with Pakistan carries massive risks, especially since both countries are nuclear powers. War could spiral out of control, cause massive casualties, disrupt the economy, and invite international intervention. Instead, Modi’s government opted for “limited, high-impact” responses, combined with efforts to isolate Pakistan diplomatically, push for its listing on global watchdogs like the FATF, and end its Most Favoured Nation (MFN) trade status. These actions put pressure on Pakistan without destabilizing the region.
In addition, Modi’s strategy included internal measures. After Pulwama, his government made a bold political move by revoking Article 370, removing the special status of Jammu & Kashmir. This was seen by many as a decisive internal step in response to Pakistan’s long-standing involvement in the Kashmir conflict.
In summary, Modi did not launch a full-scale attack on Pakistan after Uri, Pathankot, or Pulwama because war would have been too risky and potentially catastrophic. Instead, he chose a new doctrine of limited military action, combined with economic, diplomatic, and political tools. When he did “attack,” such as in the Balakot airstrike, it was done strategically—to demonstrate India’s resolve without crossing into full-blown war. This mix of restraint and retaliation shaped India’s evolving security doctrine under Modi’s leadership.