Why it's important that India did not claim that the surgical strikes were revenge for Uri

On Thursday, the Indian Army announced that it had attacked "terror launchpads" along the Line of Control and caused "significant casualties" to infiltrators planning strikes on India. These surgical strikes come with a very clear backdrop. Less than two weeks ago, cross-border militants attack an Indian Army base in Uri, Kashmir, killing 18 Indian soldiers. The incident added even more strain to tense relations between India and Pakistan, with many calling for outright retaliation against Islamabad.

In the wake of Uri, senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader Ram Madhav demanded retribution, calling for "the complete jaw" in response to each tooth knocked out by the attackers. Home Minister Rajnath Singh called Pakistan a "terrorist state". Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said those who harmed India will feel pain. In addition, the Army said that it would respond at a time and place of its choosing. From all of these statements it seemed as if India would seek revenge.

Then Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a speech striking a very different tone. Modi insisted that those who died in Uri would not be forgotten, but he also called on Pakistan to declare a war on poverty and stated that the real competition in the Subcontinent was to see who would end illiteracy and poverty first. Suddenly it seemed as if India had recognised that an emotionally motivated military response might not be the best way to prevent further action from Pakistan.

With India's announcement on Thursday of an attack along the LoC, that has changed. But there's one key part of the Army's statement that is nevertheless relevant.

Based on very credible and specific information which we received yesterday that some terrorist teams had positioned themselves at launch pads along the Line of Control with an aim to carry out infiltration and terrorist strikes in Jammu & Kashmir and in various other metros in our country, the Indian army conducted surgical strikes last night at these launch pads.

The operations were basically focused to ensure that these terrorists do not succeed in their design of infiltration and carrying out destruction and endangering the lives of citizens of our country [emphasis added].  

The specific objectives of the attack have been clearly laid out there, and they do not include the word "Uri". Instead, New Delhi has projected its strikes as a preventive measure to ensure that militants planning to cross over would not have the chance to attack India.

Even if it is effectively a way of getting revenge for the Uri attacks, India has made it clear that its stated aim was specifically to prevent terror attacks and not retribution.

As C Raja Menon pointed out in the Indian Express, any operation with specific aims – not retribution – are easier to sell to the international community, and lay down a good reason for this not to escalate, though there is no certainty of that

"After Uri, we had politicians issuing aggressive warnings and service chiefs talking of retaliation in a time of “our own choosing”. Hot pursuit is an internationally recognised concept; retaliation in a time of our own choosing is not. This is one occasion when a knee-jerk reaction was called for and we should have been ready, considering that Pakistan has an avowed strategy of bleeding India with a thousand cuts."

India has found a way around not having acted immediately. Since militants have so frequently crossed over the LoC to attack India, the claims of specific evidence about terrorists are not implausible. Stating that upfront, the Indian Army has simply claimed that it prevented a further attack.

All of this is useful in the international stage, since it makes it harder to claim India was out to get Pakistan or that this is an act of war. Some might even call it "defensive offense".

That being said, Pakistan obviously sees through this limited facade. The question for Pakistan is what it has the stomach for, which is why so far Islamabad (and Rawalpindi) are insisting that India is over-hyping an incident that they claim was just firing on the border. As long as India stays away from claiming this is revenge, Pakistan too can downplay it as Indian chest-thumping.

There is one danger in falling back on what is a slightly thin rationale. This government has had difficulty getting its supporters (and sometimes ministers) to stick to the official narrative, even when it comes to diplomatically sensitive incidents like surgical strikes, as Indians discovered after the Myanmar operation.

How successful will the Bharatiya Janata Party and the government be at getting its base to stick to the narrative that this was prevention, not retribution?