Hubbry Logo
2016 Uri attack2016 Uri attackMain
Open search
2016 Uri attack
Community hub
2016 Uri attack
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
2016 Uri attack
2016 Uri attack
2016 Uri attack
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

2016 Uri attack
Part of Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir
Date18 September 2016; 9 years ago (2016-09-18)
Location
Uri, Jammu and Kashmir
Belligerents
Insurgents India
Units involved
Jaish-e-Muhammad

Indian Army

Indian Army 4 Para (special forces)
Casualties and losses
4 killed 19 killed, 19-30 injured

The 2016 Uri attack was carried out on 18 September 2016 by four militants from Jaish-e-Mohammed against an Indian Army brigade headquarters near the town of Uri in the Indian Jammu and Kashmir. 19 Indian soldiers were killed in the attack, and 19–30 others were injured. It was reported by the BBC as having been "the deadliest attack on security forces in Kashmir in two decades".[1]

Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan-based jihadist organization (designated as a terrorist organization by the India, Australia, the US, and UK among others, and proscribed by Pakistan from 2002 and further actions against its allied organizations in 2019), was involved in the planning and execution of the attack.[2] At the time it was carried out, the Kashmir Valley was experiencing high levels of violent unrest.[3][4]

Background

[edit]

The 2016 Uri attack, which resulted in the deaths of 19 Indian soldiers, was swiftly attributed by India to militant groups allegedly operating from Pakistan, leading to significant diplomatic fallout and military escalation.[5]

Additionally, since 2015, insurgents had increasingly taken to high-profile fidayeen attacks (suicide attacks) against the Indian security forces: in July 2015, three insurgents attacked a bus and police station in Gurdaspur, and earlier in 2016, 4–6 terrorists attacked the Pathankot Air Force Station. Indian authorities had blamed Jaish-e-Mohammad for the latter attack.[6]

Also, since 8 July 2016, the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir region had been undergoing continuous unrest following the killing of Burhan Wani, local militant of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen.[7][8][9][10] The killing sparked violent protests against the Indian government in the valley,[11][12] leading to the protests being described as the "largest anti-India protests" against Indian rule in recent years.[9][13][14]

Attack

[edit]

At around 5:30 a.m. on 18 September, four insurgents attacked an Indian Army brigade headquarters in Uri, near the Line of Control in a pre-dawn ambush. They were said to have lobbed 17 grenades in three minutes. As a rear administrative base camp with tents caught fire, 17 army personnel were killed during the attack. An additional 19–30 soldiers were reported to have been injured. A gun battle ensued lasting six hours, during which all the four individuals were killed.[15][16][17][18] Combing operations continued to flush out additional militants thought to be alive.[1]

Most of the Indian soldiers had suffered casualties and subsequently those who died were from the 10th battalion, Dogra Regiment (10 Dogra) and 6th battalion, Bihar Regiment (6 Bihar).[18] One of the injured soldiers succumbed to his injuries on 19 September at RR Hospital in Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi, followed by another soldier on 24 September, bringing the death toll to 19.[19][20][21]

The casualties were primarily believed to have occurred as a result of non-fire retardant transition tents. This was the time of a troops shift, whereby troops from 6 Bihar were replacing troops from 10 Dogra. The incoming troops were housed in tents, which are normally avoided in sensitive areas around the LoC like Uri. The insurgents snuck into the camp breaching heavy security and seemed to know exactly where to strike. Seven of the personnel killed were support staff, including cooks and barbers.[22][23]

Aftermath

[edit]

On 19 September, Home Minister Rajnath Singh, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, Chief of the Army Staff Dalbir Singh, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and other officials of the Home and Defence ministries met to review the security situation in Kashmir, particularly in areas along the Line of Control.[24] The National Investigation Agency filed a first information report regarding the attack and took over the investigation from Jammu and Kashmir Police on 20 September.[25]

Pakistan International Airlines cancelled flights to some parts of Kashmir on 21 September in the aftermath of the attack.[26] Security around the army installation in Uri was intensified following the attack, while soldiers on both the Indian and Pakistani side of Line of Control were placed on high alert.[27]

Postponement of SAARC summit

[edit]

In the wake of the attack, India cancelled its participation in the 19th SAARC summit to be held in November in Islamabad, Pakistan. The Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement, saying, "India has conveyed to current SAARC Chair Nepal that increasing cross-border terrorist attacks in the region and growing interference in the internal affairs of Member States by one country have created an environment that is not conducive to the successful holding of the 19th SAARC Summit in Islamabad in November 2016." "In the prevailing circumstances, the Government of India is unable to participate in the proposed Summit in Islamabad", the statement said.[28]

Regarding India's withdrawal from the scheduled SAARC summit in Islamabad, Pakistan's Foreign Office termed the withdrawal "unfortunate", and posted a rejoinder stating: "As for the excuse used by India, the world knows that it is India that has been perpetrating and financing terrorism in Pakistan." The statement included a reference to Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav, detained by Pakistan for espionage, and accused India of violating international laws by interfering inside Pakistan.[29]

Later, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Bhutan also withdrew from the summit.[30][31] On 30 September 2016, Pakistan stated that the summit scheduled for 9 and 10 November in Islamabad would be held on alternative dates.[32]

Indian retaliation

[edit]
See also: 2016 Indian Line of Control strike

On 28 September, ten days after the attack, the Indian Army conducted retaliatory surgical strikes on alleged launch-pads used by militants in Pakistan Administered Kashmir.[33][34][35] Indian Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Lt Gen Ranbir Singh said that it had made a preemptive strike against "terrorist teams" who were preparing to "carry out infiltration and conduct terrorist strikes inside Jammu and Kashmir and in various metros in other states".[36] The Economist while citing Indian reports, reported that Indian commandos crossed the Line of Control and struck at the safe houses, allegedly killing approximately 150 Kashmiri militants.[33]

Bilateral boycott

[edit]

Following the uproar after the Uri attack, Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA) decided to ban all Pakistani actors, actresses and technicians working in India until the situation returns to normal.[37] Bollywood artists were divided towards the ban with some justifying it while some questioning its benefits.[38] Indian TV entertainment channel Zindagi announced discontinuation of airing Pakistani TV shows on the channel.[39] The Pakistani government responded in October with a blanket ban on all Indian television and radio programming in Pakistan.[40]

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), the national governing body for cricket in India, ruled out the possibility of reviving bilateral cricket ties with Pakistan in the near future.[41] BCCI also asked the International Cricket Council (ICC) to not group Indian and Pakistan cricket teams together in international tournaments, keeping in mind border tensions between the two countries.[42] Badminton Association of India, the governing body for badminton in India, decided to boycott the Pakistan International Series scheduled to be held in Islamabad in October, as an act of "solidarity" with the government's diplomatic offensive against Pakistan.[43]

Investigation

[edit]

An initial investigation into the attack indicated that there were several procedural lapses at the camp. According to the standard security procedures, any tall grass and bushes around vital security installations should be trimmed. However, this procedure was not followed by the Uri camp which might have allowed insurgents to sneak into the camp undetected using the tall grass and bushes around the perimeter. In addition, the probe also indicated that two manned guard posts failed to detect the intrusion because the coordination between them might have been poor. It also indicated that the terrorists had infiltrated the Indian territory through Haji Pir Pass on the intervening night of 16–17 September and stayed in Sukhdar village which is located at a vantage point that allows an unhindered view of the layout of the camp as well as movement of the personnel in it.[44]

Perpetrators

[edit]
The Director General Military Operations (DGMO) Lt. Gen. Ranbir Singh briefing the media on the terrorist attack at Army Camp, in Uri, a day after the attacks, on September 19, 2016.

The Director General of military operations, Lieutenant-General Ranbir Singh, said that there was evidence[clarification needed][citation needed] that the individuals involved in the attack belonged to Jaish-e-Mohammad.[45] He established a hotline contact with his Pakistani counterpart and conveyed India's serious concern on the issue.[16][46] Singh also stated that the militants used incendiary ammunition to set fire to the tents.[16][47]

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs said:

In the recent incidents, we have recovered a number of items that include GPS from the bodies of terrorists with coordinates that indicate the point and time of infiltration across the LoC and the subsequent route to the terror attack site; grenades with Pakistani markings; communication matrix sheets; communication equipment; and other stores made in Pakistan, including food, medicines and clothes.[48]

Whilst, on 29 September, National Investigation Agency officials said:

Until now, little hard evidence has emerged to link the perpetrators of the terror attack in Uri to specific jihadist groups in Pakistan.[49]

Former Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf said the weapons that India reported as used by militants, and reported to have Pakistani markings, could be procured anywhere in the world, not just in Pakistan.[50] Musharraf further said since many American weapons had inadvertently fallen into the hands of the Taliban, it is possible for Pakistani weapons to have been acquired by the perpetrators without Pakistani involvement.[51]

On 25 September, the Indian Army announced that two Pakistani nationals[a] from Pakistan administered Kashmir were arrested by the Border Security Force in the Uri sector. They were said to have been recruited by Jaish-e-Muhammad two years ago for the purpose of acting as guides to infiltrating groups in the Uri sector. These guides themselves did not have a role in the Uri attack. They were being questioned for gathering intelligence about infiltration attempts.[52] Pakistan denied these allegations.[53] On 26 February 2017, India's National Investigative Agency (NIA) decided to file a closure report after failing to find any evidence against the two men whom they accused of facilitating the Uri army base attack.[54]

On 25 October 2016, the Indian media reported that street "posters" in Gujranwala, Pakistan, attributed to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) claimed responsibility for the Uri attack.[55][56] The posters claimed that one of LeT's fighters Mohammad Anas, code-named Abu Saraqa, died in the Uri attack, and there would be a funeral prayer followed by a speech by the LeT chief Hafiz Saeed on 25 October. The poster also claimed death of 17 Indian soldiers in Uri attack. After the images of the poster circulated on the Internet, the organisation claimed that it was a hoax. Abbas Nasir, the former editor of Dawn, confirmed the report about the posters on Twitter but stated that the funeral prayers have been postponed.[57]

Reactions

[edit]

India

[edit]

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and members of his cabinet condemned the attack.[1] Minister of Defence Manohar Parrikar and Indian Army chief General Dalbir Singh visited Kashmir soon after the attack to assess the ongoing military operations and review the security situation in the region.[58] Parrikar instructed the army to take firm action against those responsible for the attack and also stated that the deaths of the soldiers "will not go in vain."[59] Home Minister Rajnath Singh accused Pakistan of what he called its "continued and direct support to terrorism and terrorist groups," calling Pakistan a "terrorist state" that should be "isolated."[60] Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre stated that the "entire nation was traumatised" over the death of the soldiers and was "united in this hour of grief." He also stated that the Prime Minister, Home Minister and Defence Minister had come to a conclusion that some sort of a "response" needs to be given to Pakistan.[61]

Minister of State for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj and former Army chief Vijay Kumar Singh stated that India will give a "befitting reply" to the attack. He called upon the Indian Armed Forces to scale up their security and described a cold and calculated response as the need of the hour. He also called for an investigation into the shortcomings which led to the attack while stating that the Army should decide its response "coolly" with proper planning.[62][63] Many[vague] Indian politicians and public figures have condemned the attack.[64] Former Indian diplomats and foreign policy experts[who?] have said that India had been driven to the wall and that a measured and effective response was needed.[65] The opposition Indian National Congress has said that there was no more scope for constructive dialogue with Pakistan.[66]

Later on the same day, India called upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to urge Pakistan to put an end to cross-border infiltration and dismantle the non-state militant infrastructure since the likes of Hafeez Saeed (the chief of Lashkar-e-Taiba) and Syed Salahuddin (the chief of Hizbul Mujahideen) can hold huge rallies in Pakistan's main cities. It suggested that active support for such groups has become the "new normal" in Pakistan. It claimed that "zero tolerance" to non-state militancy was an international obligation.[67] The Indian government summoned the Pakistani envoy and handed him a dossier that alleged Pakistani involvement as well as a warning that Pakistan needs to rein in militants they say operate from Pakistan.[48]

On 24 September, Prime Minister Modi formally responded to the attack during a BJP rally in Kozhikode, Kerala; in his address, he charged Pakistan with responsibility for the attack, saying that India would "never forget" Uri and would "leave no stone unturned to isolate Pakistan in the world." He called upon the citizens of both India and Pakistan to fight against poverty. "I want to say that India is ready for a war... India is ready for a war on poverty. Let both countries fight to see who would eradicate poverty first... I want to tell the youth of Pakistan, let's have a war on ending unemployment... I want to call out to the children in Pakistan, let's declare war on illiteracy. Let's see who wins."[68]

In further responding to the attack, on 26 September, the Indian government stated it would exercise its rights under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty to the full and would expand its utilisation of its rivers flowing through Jammu and Kashmir. Talks under the aegis of the Permanent Indus Commission, to which any disputes may be submitted, would cease "until terror comes to an end." The body had most recently met in July 2016.[69] The government subsequently stated it would review Pakistan's most-favoured-nation (MFN) trade status, which India had granted in 1996.[70]

Pakistan

[edit]

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry rejected India's allegations of involvement in the attack. The ministry asserted that India had a "tendency" of accusing Pakistan for incidents inside its territory, adding that "in the past many Indians were involved in the terrorist acts for which India had blamed Pakistan."[71] The ministry deemed Indian statements as "vitriolic."[72] During a press conference in London, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif linked the incident to the recent unrest and human rights issues in Kashmir.[73] Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan said there were several contradictions within Indian media reports over the evidence, and claimed India was imposing censorship when their "lies were exposed."[74][75] Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif termed the attack an "inside job", saying that no proof was provided substantiating India's allegations, and said India was not serious about solving the Kashmir dispute.[76][77] Pakistan's envoy in New Delhi, Abdul Basit, told India's Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar that India sought to divert world attention from state atrocities in Kashmir by blaming the attack on Pakistan. Basit also added that if India was serious about the investigations, it should not avoid allowing independent investigators to probe it.[53]

In the hours following the attack, Pakistan's military established a hotline with the Indian military. The Pakistani military rejected Indian accusations, saying that infiltration was not possible across the heavily guarded LOC. Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations also asked the Indian military to provide actionable intelligence.[71]

Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff Raheel Sharif claimed that India was propagating a "hostile narrative" in response the attack and also stated that the Pakistani armed forces were "prepared to respond to the entire spectrum of direct and indirect threat."[78]

In response to India's suspension of cooperation over the Indus Waters Treaty, Sartaj Aziz said India could not revoke the treaty unilaterally as per the IWT's provisions and international laws, and said such a move would be taken as an act of "war and hostilities." Aziz said Pakistan would approach the United Nations Security Council in that event.[79]

International Reactions

[edit]
Countries
  •  Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – Afghan Ambassador to India Shaida Mohammad Abdali condemned the attack. Pledging his nation's support to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's call for a strong and firm action against the perpetrators, Ambassador Abdali said: "We fully support PM Modi's call for strong and firm action against those who terrorise people, and those who use terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy; seeing this for many years. Whoever uses terrorism shouldn't only be isolated but also held accountable."[80]
  •  Armenia – Armenia condemned the attack and expressed condolences to "families of killed and friendly people of India".[81]
  •  Bahrain – Bahrain's Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed the nation's "full support to the friendly Republic of India in their actions to counter terrorism" and called for "concerted efforts to eliminate it (terrorism) and cut off its funding."[81]
  •  Bangladesh –Bangladesh High Commissioner to India Syed Muazzem Ali [82] condemned the attack.[83] Bangladesh – MOFA has not yet released a press release.[84] The country has also withdrawn from the 19th SAARC summit scheduled to be held in Islamabad, Pakistan.[85]
  •  Bhutan – The Foreign Ministry issued a statement that read: "Bhutan strongly condemns terrorism in all its forms and stands with India in the fight against terrorism. Such heinous acts of terrorism calls for the need to step up international cooperation to combat the scourge of terrorism that poses a severe threat to the peace and stability of all countries."[86]
  •  Canada – Acting High Commissioner Jess Dutton issued a statement condemning the attack and extending Canada's condolences to the victims and their families. "We are appalled by these attacks and stand with the Government of India in the fight against terrorism."[87]
  •  China – The Foreign Ministry issued a statement condemning the attack and expressed sympathy towards the families of the slain soldiers as well as the injured soldiers. It also expressed concerns about rising tensions in the Kashmir region and called upon India and Pakistan to hold dialogue and consultations in order to solve their differences and counter-terrorism operations.[88]
  •  France – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development issued a statement condemning the attack and calling for a peaceful settlement to disputes in Kashmir. "France condemns in the firmest terms the terrible terrorist attack committed on 18 September against an Indian Army camp in the Kashmir region. It expresses its condolences to the families of the 17 Indian soldiers killed in this attack. France stands beside India in the struggle against terrorism. It calls on each state to effectively fight against terrorist groups operating on its territory or from its territory against other countries. France reaffirms its commitment for a peaceful and structured settlement of differences in the region of Kashmir."[89] France also called for "decisive actions" against anti-India terrorist organisations, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen.[90]
  •  Germany – Minister of Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier condemned the attack and said, "our thoughts are with the families of the murdered soldiers and with the many people who have been injured, some seriously."[91] He added, "Germany stands resolutely at India's side in the fight against terrorism. At the Indo-German counterterrorism consultations, which will take place in a few days' time, we will further discuss the threats to our two countries' societies.".[91]
  •  Italy – Minister of Foreign Affairs Paolo Gentiloni condemned the attack "in Jammu and Kashmir." He offered "deepest condolences to the families of the victims and to the Indian authorities," also affirming "Italy's solidarity with India in a common fight against terrorism to promote peace and security in the world."[92]
  •  Japan – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement which read: "The Government of Japan strongly condemns the terrorist attack on the Indian Base in Uri, Jammu and Kashmir, and extends its sincere condolences to those who lost their lives and their bereaved families, and expresses its heartfelt sympathy to those who were injured."[93]
  •  Maldives – Maldives[who?] condemned the attack, saying that it has "always condemned international terrorism, especially those originating from outside, defeating and eliminating which requires international collaboration and cooperation in good faith."[81]
  •  Mauritius – Mauritius[who?] condemned the attack and said that it "stands in solidarity with the Government of India and with all those committed to the fight against terrorism."[81]
  •  Mongolia – Mongolia[who?] expressed its deep regret in regards to the attack and said that the "terrorist attack must not be a disruption of efforts for strengthening the regional stability and mutual understanding in the region."[81]
  •    Nepal – In a message to his Indian counterpart, Prime Minister Prachanda said he was of the firm belief that the perpetrators behind this heinous act will be brought to justice at the earliest. He reiterated the Nepali government's position of unequivocally condemning non-state militancy in all its forms and manifestations and said that such acts must be firmly and resolutely dealt with. Prachanda also extended his heartfelt condolences and sympathies to the bereaved families.[94][95]
  •  Qatar – Qatar[who?] condemned the attack, stressing its "condemnation of such criminal acts which aim to undermine security and stability."[81]
  •  Russia – The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement condemning the attacks, and also offered condolences to the families of victims. The Ministry also expressed concern about the terrorist attacks near the Line of Control stating, "We are also concerned about the fact that, according to New Delhi, the army base near Uri was attacked from Pakistani territory." The ministry added, "We believe that this criminal act will be investigated properly, and that its organisers and perpetrators will be held accountable. We confirm our continued support for the Indian government's counterterrorism efforts."[96] On 19 September, Indian media claimed that Russia was cancelling a joint military exercise with Pakistan that had been scheduled to begin on 24 September.[97] However, Russian forces arrived in Pakistan on 23 September and commenced the exercises as scheduled.[98]
  •  Saudi Arabia – Saudi Arabia[who?] expressed its "strong condemnation and denunciation of the terrorist attack that targeted an Indian military base in the Uri area of north Kashmir, killing and wounding dozens."[99]
  •  Singapore – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong condemned the attack during an official visit to India on 4 October. "Singapore condemns terrorism in all forms and we express condolences to the victims of the terror attack in Uri."[100]
  •  Sri Lanka – President Maithripala Sirisena called PM Modi to condemn the attack and offered condolences to the families of the victims.[101] The Foreign Ministry issued a statement that read the attack and reaffirmed the "urgent need for sustained" regional and global cooperation to eliminate terrorism. "In the hour of grief, the Government of Sri Lanka offers its condolences to the families of the victims of the attack."[102] On 30 September, Sri Lanka postponed its participation for the SAARC summit, saying the prevailing environment in the region was not conducive.[103]
  •  South Korea – South Korea[who?] extended its "deepest condolences and sympathy to the innocent victims of the terrorist attack and their bereaved families," adding that terrorism is an unjustifiable crime against humanity.[81]
  •  Turkey – Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement expressing sorrow over the "heinous attack," extending its condolences "to the families of soldiers who lost their lives" and wishing those injured a speedy recovery. The ministry said it was "deeply concerned about the increasing tension and casualties occurring recently in Jammu and Kashmir," and expressed hope that problems would be "settled through dialogue and within the framework of the relevant UN resolutions."[104]
  •  UAE – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation issued a statement "renewing the nation's firm stand against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, its solidarity with the Republic of India and its support to all actions it may take to confront and eradicate terrorism". It further offered deepest condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, as well as the government and people of India, and wished a speedy recovery to those who had been injured.[105]
  •  United Kingdom – Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson condemned the attack. "The UK strongly condemns this morning's terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir. I offer my deepest condolences to the victims and their families and friends. The UK condemns all forms of terrorism, and stands shoulder to shoulder with India in the fight against terrorism, and in bringing the perpetrators to justice."[106]
  •  United States – State Department spokesperson John Kirby said: "The United States strongly condemns the terrorist attack on an Indian army base in Kashmir during the early morning of September 18. We extend our condolences to the victims and their families. The United States is committed to our strong partnership with the Indian government to combat terrorism."[107]
The Chairman of the US House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Congressman Ted Poe from Texas, along with Dana Rohrabacher from California, introduced a bill in the House of Representatives calling for a declaration of Pakistan as a "state sponsor of terrorism." The bill HR6069 requires the president to issue a report within 90 days detailing Pakistan's role in supporting international terrorism followed by discussion from the US Secretary of State. Ted Poe said in a statement that Pakistan was not only an untrustworthy ally but it has also aided and abetted the enemies of the United States. He called the Uri attack the "latest consequence of Pakistan's longstanding irresponsible policy of supporting and providing operational space for 'jihadi' terrorist groups".[108][109]
 Venezuela – Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro expressed solidarity with the people of India and stated: "We are committed along with our brotherly people of the world to get into the depth of this problem that has generated proliferation of terrorist movements, which doesn't respect life and the need for coexistence of people."[110]
Organizations
  •  United Nations – On 19 September, Ban Ki-moon, the spokesperson of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, issued a statement which condemned the attack and expressed his deepest sympathy and condolences to the families of the soldiers who lost their lives and to the government of India. He also wished a speedy recovery to those who were injured during the attack and hoped that the perpetrators of the army base will be identified and brought to justice.[111]
  •  European Union – An EU spokesperson issued a statement calling for solidarity against non-state militancy and expressing condolences to the families of the victims of the attack. "Yesterday's terrorist attack against the Uri Indian military camp demonstrates once again that terrorism has no boundaries, and that it is a global threat. As far as the European Union is concerned, we are committed to working with our partners and the international community at large to combat terrorism in all its forms. Our first thoughts and condolences go to the victims of this attack and to their families. We wish a quick recovery to those who were injured."[112]

Media

[edit]

The Deutsche Welle noted that Kashmir was already in international headlines at the time of the Uri attack due to the anti-India protests. It further noted that immediately after the attack, mainstream media in India and Pakistan engaged in "angry" rhetoric towards each other.[113] A video of Indian soldiers chanting "Pakistan, hear this loud and clear: If ... war breaks out you will be obliterated" went viral. The Diplomat noted that many Indian media had openly called for a war on Pakistan.[114]

India Today suggested that the fallout from the Uri attack would hurt Pakistani artists in India.[115] Maharashtra Navnirman Sena gave all Pakistani artists in India 48 hours to leave the country and warned that they would be "hunted down".[116] Subhash Chandra also said Pakistani artists should leave.[115] Zee TV considered terminating Pakistani shows. The Indian Motion Picture Producers Association (IMPPA) decided to ban all Pakistani actors, actresses and technicians in India till the situation returned to normal.[37] However Bollywood artists were divided towards the ban with some justifying it while some questioning its benefits.[38]

On 18 September, the Times of India revealed that the army personnel recovered a map from the attackers which had markings in the Pashtun language and indicated a detailed plan of action. Four AK-47 rifles and four under barrel grenade launchers along with ammunition were also recovered. According to the Indian Army, some of the items had Pakistani markings.[46] This was denied by the National Investigation Agency.

The Diplomat noted that the timing of the attack coincided with the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly the following week.[117] The Diplomat, in another article, said that the attack was "designed" to increase public pressure against the Modi government's engagement with Pakistan.[118] It also reported that there was specific intelligence input from the Intelligence Bureau two days earlier that an attack was being planned against army formations close to the LOC.[119] The intelligence agency had said that three fidayeen squads were launched from Pakistan-administered Kashmir. One of them attacked Uri, another went to Poonch where it was engaged by the security forces, and the third is believed to be targeting Srinagar highway.[120] The India Today Television mentioned that, according to unnamed intelligence sources, Pakistan was plotting a "spectacular event" ahead of Nawaz Sharif's speech to the UN General Assembly.[121]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

2016 Uri attack

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The 2016 Uri attack was a terrorist assault carried out on 18 September 2016 by four armed militants against an brigade headquarters near the town of Uri in Jammu and Kashmir, close to the with . The militants infiltrated the base under cover of darkness, initiating the attack with grenade launches and small-arms fire, which resulted in the deaths of 18 Indian soldiers and injuries to at least 30 others, marking it as one of the deadliest strikes on Indian military personnel in the region since the 2001 Parliament attack. All four attackers were killed by responding Indian forces during the ensuing firefight. Indian military and intelligence assessments attributed the operation to (JeM), a designated terrorist organization operating from , citing recovered weapons of Pakistani origin, the militants' training profiles, and tactical similarities to prior JeM operations such as the . rejected these claims, denying any involvement and suggesting the incident was staged by to malign it, a position consistent with Islamabad's historical pattern of shielding cross-border militants despite evidence of safe havens for groups like JeM. The assault highlighted ongoing vulnerabilities along the , where infiltration attempts had surged earlier that year, with Indian forces reporting nearly 20 foiled crossings amid heightened militant activity. The Uri attack prompted a swift Indian retaliation on 29 September 2016, when conducted precision strikes on terrorist launch pads across the , targeting sites used to stage attacks into , an action confirmed by India's of Military Operations as based on credible intelligence linking the perpetrators to the Uri deaths. This response marked a shift in India's counter-terrorism doctrine toward proactive measures against state-supported proxy warfare, escalating bilateral tensions but also garnering domestic support for a harder line on Pakistan-sponsored . Internationally, the U.S. and others condemned the attack and urged Pakistan to dismantle terror infrastructure, though enforcement remained limited. The incident underscored the causal role of Pakistan's tolerance of jihadist networks in perpetuating violence in , fueling cycles of retaliation absent decisive action against groups like JeM.

Geopolitical Context

Kashmir Insurgency and Cross-Border Terrorism

The dispute emerged in October 1947 after the partition of British India, when Maharaja Hari Singh of the of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to following an by Pashtun tribesmen supported by , leading to the first Indo-Pakistani . The conflict ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire in January 1949, establishing the (LoC) that divided the region, with administering about two-thirds and the remainder. This division has since fueled multiple wars in 1965 and 1999, alongside persistent territorial claims by both nations over the entire region. The insurgency in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir intensified in 1989, initially driven by local separatist grievances exacerbated by the alleged rigging of the 1987 state elections, but rapidly evolved into a proxy conflict with providing external sustenance. Drawing on expertise from its Afghan jihad operations, shifted surplus networks to starting in the late 1980s, arming and deploying groups to conduct aimed at destabilizing Indian control. This strategy of using non-state actors as proxies allowed to pursue irredentist goals without direct conventional confrontation, resulting in a protracted characterized by ambushes, bombings, and assassinations. Cross-border terrorism manifests primarily through militant infiltrations across the LoC, with Indian military assessments documenting thousands of attempts since the insurgency's onset, often peaking during periods of reduced international scrutiny. For instance, official data indicate over 100 successful infiltrations in alone, amid broader patterns where Pakistani territory serves as launchpads for armed groups entering to target and civilians. These incursions have contributed to cumulative casualties exceeding 40,000 from to , including security personnel, militants, and non-combatants, underscoring the causal link between unchecked permeability and sustained . Pakistan's (ISI) has played a central causal role in orchestrating this militancy, coordinating training camps, arms supplies, and infiltration routes from bases in Pakistan-occupied and Punjab province. includes intercepted communications, seized weaponry traced to Pakistani ordnance factories, and admissions from captured militants detailing ISI handlers' involvement in operations. This state-sponsored infrastructure enables groups to execute cross-border attacks, perpetuating a cycle of that exploits the disputed terrain to challenge Indian sovereignty without risking full-scale war.

Prior Incidents and Pakistan's Role

The Air Force Station attack on January 2, 2016, served as a significant precursor to the Uri incident, involving four militants who infiltrated the base near the India- border, leading to a four-day that resulted in seven Indian security personnel killed and the neutralization of all attackers. The assault was claimed by the , a coalition of Pakistan-based militant groups including (JeM) and (LeT), with forensic analysis of recovered weapons, such as M4 carbines and AK-47s bearing Pakistani markings, pointing to cross-border origins. Indian investigations further revealed communications intercepts linking the perpetrators to handlers in , underscoring a pattern of externally sponsored strikes on military targets in the preceding months. This attack exemplified escalating militancy in Jammu and Kashmir during 2015-2016, with multiple infiltrations and ambushes attributed to similar Pakistan-origin groups, including over 200 ceasefire violations along the in early 2016 alone, facilitating terrorist crossings. JeM, designated by the U.S. as a Pakistan-based Sunni terrorist organization focused on annexing to , has operated training infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied , as evidenced by intelligence-shared dossiers highlighting camps near the used for indoctrination and arms training. Reports indicate JeM's founding leader received support from Pakistani state elements, including the (ISI), enabling sustained operations despite international sanctions. Pakistan has maintained a consistent pattern of denying state involvement or the use of its territory for such activities, attributing attacks to indigenous unrest, even as U.S. designations affirm JeM and LeT's safe havens in and evidence of non-prosecution of key figures. This stance persists despite forensic traces, such as Pakistani ammunition in debris, and international critiques noting Pakistan's selective crackdowns on terror networks, which fail to dismantle core ISI-linked facilities proximate to the border. Such denials contrast with empirical indicators of external orchestration, including satellite-verified camp activities referenced in shared , rejecting narratives that downplay cross-border sponsorship in favor of localized claims.

The Attack

Timeline and Tactics

The assault on the Indian Army's 12th Infantry Brigade headquarters near Uri began in the pre-dawn hours of September 18, 2016, with four militants infiltrating the perimeter under cover of darkness. The intruders, armed with automatic rifles including AK-47s and M4 carbines, along with grenades and , first targeted soldiers resting in temporary tents adjacent to the administrative block. The militants employed coordinated tactics to maximize surprise and confinement, lobbing grenades into enclosed spaces and using burst fire to suppress responses before advancing to administrative and support areas such as cookhouses and storerooms. In these structures, they locked personnel inside and ignited fires using incendiary rounds, as corroborated by initial forensic examinations and eyewitness testimonies from survivors. This method aimed to trap and eliminate grouped targets efficiently while exploiting the camp's layout for cover during movement. The ensuing engagement unfolded as a series of close-quarters firefights and ambushes within the brigade perimeter, commencing around 4:30 AM and continuing intermittently until the last militants were neutralized by approximately 8:30 AM. personnel responded with small arms and positioned defenses, forcing the attackers into hit-and-run maneuvers amid the terrain of tents, bunkers, and fuel depots, though the militants' initial breach allowed sustained pressure on key zones before reinforcements contained the threat.

Casualties and Immediate Response

The attack on September 18, 2016, resulted in the deaths of 18 soldiers and injuries to more than 20 others, with no civilian casualties reported. Most fatalities occurred among personnel from the , who were caught in the initial assault while resting. The militants employed grenades, including incendiary types, which ignited tents housing sleeping soldiers, vehicles, and supply stores, causing the bulk of the soldier deaths through burns and . Core base infrastructure sustained minimal structural damage due to the fires being contained amid the ongoing engagement. Indian Army troops mounted an immediate counteroffensive with small arms fire, maneuvers, and support, neutralizing all four attackers in a firefight that lasted several hours. The rapid response prevented further infiltration and limited additional losses beyond the initial toll.

Investigation and Perpetrators

Indian Forensic and Intelligence Findings

The (NIA) spearheaded the forensic investigation into the September 18, 2016, attack on the brigade headquarters in . A team of NIA investigators arrived in shortly after the incident to collect biological samples, including DNA, blood, and fingerprints from the four slain militants, for laboratory analysis to establish their identities and origins. The agency also recovered and forwarded 67 items from the attack site—including clothing, equipment, and potential residue from explosives and ammunition—for specialized forensic testing to trace manufacturing origins and handling. Analysis of the collected evidence confirmed the militants' Pakistani nationality, with profiles matching individuals from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Indian officials shared this biometric data, along with details of infiltration routes across the near Uri, with Pakistani counterparts via diplomatic channels, including offers to verify the samples independently. The evidence indicated a two-point breach: initial crossing from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir into Indian territory, followed by penetration of the army camp's perimeter . Indian intelligence corroborated the forensic data with prior alerts about heightened infiltration risks targeting installations in the sector, though specifics on intercepted communications linking to the exact group were pursued separately. The NIA supplemented ground evidence with of the attack site to reconstruct militant movements and tactical positioning during the assault. Despite these findings, the agency noted challenges in advancing the probe further without Pakistani cooperation, leading to no chargesheet filing by early 2018 due to cold leads on surviving networks.

Attribution to Jaish-e-Mohammed

The Indian Army and intelligence agencies attributed the September 18, 2016, attack on the Uri brigade headquarters to Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), a Pakistan-based Islamist militant group founded in 2000 by Masood Azhar, based on operational intelligence, forensic recovery, and a post-attack claim relayed through media channels. A JeM representative contacted a Srinagar-based journalist shortly after the assault to claim responsibility, aligning with the group's pattern of indirect attributions via proxies rather than formal video releases, as seen in prior operations. Forensic evidence from the site included weapons such as rifles, M4 carbines, and Pakistani-made grenades bearing inscriptions and markings consistent with supplied to JeM through cross-border networks, as recovered from the four slain attackers—all identified as Pakistani nationals via documents and biometric traces. Recovered GPS devices and radio sets tuned to frequencies associated with Pakistani further indicated infiltration support, matching JeM's fidayeen tactics of small, heavily armed squads targeting military installations during predawn hours to maximize surprise, as demonstrated in the January 2016 airbase assault. This attribution fits JeM's ideological focus on "" against Indian forces in , with the Uri operation's precision—breaching perimeter wire at two points to target sleeping tents—echoing the group's elite suicide squads trained in camps under Azhar's oversight. UN Security Council Resolution 1267 sanctions since December 2001 designate JeM and Azhar for ties to and reliance on state-sponsored logistics in , corroborated by U.S. State Department assessments of the group's persistent Kashmir-centric operations despite intermittent crackdowns. The attack's scale, killing 19 soldiers, reinforced JeM's history of high-impact strikes, including the 2001 Indian assault, underscoring operational continuity despite the group's formal .

Pakistani Denials and Counter-Claims

Following the 2016 Uri attack on September 18, Pakistani officials categorically denied any state or cross-border involvement, with the military's (ISPR) asserting that the incident stemmed from local unrest in Indian-administered rather than infiltration from . The ISPR spokesperson emphasized that no credible evidence supported claims of Pakistani-origin militants crossing the , instead portraying the attackers as indigenous elements driven by regional grievances. This stance aligned with 's longstanding position that violence in involves "freedom fighters" operating independently, unaffiliated with . Pakistani media and some government-aligned commentators propagated counter-claims alleging the attack was an Indian "" operation intended to justify military escalation and international isolation of , though these assertions lacked independent forensic or intelligence corroboration. Such narratives echoed patterns from prior incidents, including the and 2016 assault, where rejected Indian-presented evidence of links to groups like while demanding joint investigations that were never materialized. Despite these denials, (JeM), identified by Indian investigations as the perpetrator, has been designated a terrorist entity by the since 2001 under resolution 1267, with its headquarters in , , and leadership under , a Pakistani national. Pakistani authorities maintained that JeM operated without official sanction and that the Uri assailants' purported local ties invalidated cross-border attributions, a position consistent with Islamabad's historical reluctance to prosecute designated terrorists despite international pressure. This rejection persisted amid UN blacklisting of Azhar in 2019, underscoring a pattern where empirical links to Pakistan-based infrastructure were downplayed in favor of narratives emphasizing Kashmiri autonomy.

Indian Retaliation

Surgical Strikes Across the LoC

On the night intervening 28 and 29 September 2016, Indian Army Para Special Forces units executed targeted surgical strikes across the Line of Control into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, striking nine terrorist launch pads identified as hubs for infiltration and attack planning. Director General of Military Operations Lieutenant General Ranbir Singh announced the operation on 29 September, stating it was a measured response to repeated cross-border terrorism, with strikes limited to the LoC's immediate vicinity to disrupt imminent threats without broader incursion. Preceding the operation, Indian intelligence agencies compiled actionable data from human sources and surveillance assets, including drone reconnaissance, confirming active militant presence and preparations at these sites for Uri-style assaults involving and grenades. This intelligence validated the launch pads' role in coordinating attacks, with specific locations in the Lipa valley and along the Shalwatan ridge selected for their direct linkage to recent infiltrations. The strikes inflicted heavy losses on terrorist elements, with Indian assessments reporting over 38 militants neutralized through close-quarters engagement and demolition of infrastructure like training facilities and weapon caches. No Pakistani casualties were reported or acknowledged by , as the focus remained on non-state actors and their support setups, enabling a swift disengagement of Indian teams without escalation into conventional conflict. and ground reports corroborated damage to targeted sites, underscoring the operation's tactical precision.

Verification and Outcomes

The Indian Director General of Military Operations announced on September 29, 2016, that had conducted precision strikes on nine terrorist launch pads across the , neutralizing militants and infrastructure used for infiltration into Indian-administered . In 2018, the Indian Army released authenticated video footage, verified by then-Northern Army Commander D.S. Hooda, depicting para commandos advancing on targets in sectors including Lipa, Sarjal, and Tatta Pani, with disclosed coordinates aligning to pre-strike on militant concentrations. Pakistan's rejected any cross-border raids, describing the events as routine exchanges that resulted in two Pakistani soldiers killed and no confirmed militant deaths from Indian incursions. Local accounts from Pakistan-administered areas, however, reported militant casualties in the vicinity of alleged strike sites shortly after, with some attributed to clashes but aligning with Indian estimates of 38 to 40 terrorists eliminated. Independent assessments faced limitations from restricted terrain access and operational secrecy, with no publicly released confirming structural damage, as the raids involved small-unit night actions rather than large-scale bombardment. Indian evaluations concluded the operations disrupted and , yielding an immediate deterrent effect through neutralized launch pads, though Pakistani sources contested any lasting impact on cross-border capabilities.

Diplomatic and Regional Aftermath

SAARC Summit Postponement

Following the 2016 Uri attack on September 18, India announced on September 27 its decision to boycott the 19th SAARC summit scheduled for November 9–10 in Islamabad, Pakistan, stating that "increasing cross-border terrorist attacks in the region" had rendered the environment unconducive for the event's success under the SAARC charter's requirement for unanimous participation. This move invoked concerns over regional security, directly linking the postponement to Pakistan's alleged role in fostering terrorism, as evidenced by the attack's attribution to Pakistan-based militants. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka subsequently joined the boycott in solidarity with India, citing the same escalation in cross-border terrorism as undermining SAARC's foundational principles of peace and cooperation. Pakistan, left as the sole participant willing to proceed, announced the summit's indefinite postponement on September 30, accusing India of sabotaging the process but acknowledging that SAARC protocols precluded hosting without full attendance. This isolation underscored a rare regional consensus among South Asian neighbors on the threats posed by terrorism originating from Pakistani soil, with boycotting nations explicitly referencing the Uri incident and prior attacks like Pathankot. The cancellation stalled SAARC's broader agenda, including stalled initiatives on trade liberalization and connectivity, as the organization—already dormant since the 2014 Kathmandu summit—faced deepened divisions that prevented subsequent heads-of-state meetings for years. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry expressed regret but maintained that India's actions prioritized bilateral disputes over multilateral progress, though regional statements from boycotters emphasized imperatives over .

Bilateral Diplomatic Boycotts

In the immediate aftermath of the September 18, 2016, Uri attack, India suspended bilateral talks under the , canceling the scheduled meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission in on September 26, 2016, and stating that further discussions would not resume until Pakistan addressed cross-border . This decision marked a direct escalation in diplomatic isolation, as the treaty's mechanisms rely on regular commissioner-level engagements to manage shared river waters. India further curtailed people-to-people contacts by suspending cultural exchanges and visa exemptions for Pakistani nationals under bilateral and SAARC frameworks, effectively terminating visa-free short-term travel regimes that had facilitated limited civilian movement. These measures, announced alongside a review of all bilateral agreements, aimed to pressure Pakistan by restricting non-official interactions previously encouraged for confidence-building. Pakistan reciprocated by expelling an Indian diplomat from its capital on October 27, 2016, in direct response to India's earlier expulsion of a Pakistani High Commission staffer accused of in . This tit-for-tat action reduced diplomatic personnel on both sides, compounding pre-existing strains from the attack and India's subsequent military response, though neither country fully withdrew envoys or closed missions at that stage.

Reactions

Indian Domestic Response

The 2016 Uri attack on September 18, which resulted in the deaths of 19 personnel, elicited widespread bipartisan outrage across India's , with opposition leaders including those from the Congress party demanding decisive military retaliation against Pakistan-based perpetrators. Public sentiment mirrored this fury, manifesting in protests, candlelight vigils, and media campaigns pressuring the government to abandon restraint perceived as appeasement toward . Prime Minister articulated a policy shift on September 29, 2016, instructing officials reviewing the that "blood and water cannot flow together," underscoring India's refusal to maintain normal bilateral ties amid ongoing cross-border . This rhetoric reflected domestic consensus against dialogue with until terror attacks ceased, bolstering nationalist resolve for proactive counter-terrorism measures. The attack also spurred heightened interest in military service, with reports of increased applications to join the armed forces amid public admiration for the soldiers' sacrifice, though exact figures varied by recruitment drive. Families of the Uri victims received honors, including posthumous awards and state funerals, further galvanizing national support for the .

Pakistani Government and Public Reaction

The Pakistani government condemned the Uri attack shortly after its occurrence on September 18, 2016, with stating that denounced the violence. However, Sharif rejected India's attribution of the attack to Pakistan-based militants, describing such accusations as a "long-time habit" without evidence and calling for an independent investigation. He further suggested the incident could represent a "reaction" to the prevailing situation in , framing it within the broader context of alleged Indian atrocities rather than cross-border . The (ISPR), the military's media arm, aligned with the civilian government's position by denying any Pakistani involvement and emphasizing the need for a neutral probe into the event. Public reaction in Pakistan displayed a defensive posture, with widespread media amplification of counter-narratives portraying the attack as potentially staged by Indian forces as a operation to malign . Urdu-language newspapers prominently featured theories on front pages, rejecting evidence of militant infiltration and instead attributing the incident to internal Indian machinations or unrest in . This coverage reflected broader public sentiment in segments sympathetic to the Kashmiri separatist cause, where the attack was sometimes contextualized as resistance rather than unprovoked aggression, though explicit celebrations were limited and official channels maintained a line of condemnation coupled with deflection. Economic elites, while aligning with the national denial, expressed private apprehensions over escalating tensions that could exacerbate 's , though these concerns gained prominence only after India's subsequent retaliatory measures.

International Statements and Positions

The strongly condemned the Uri attack as a terrorist incident on September 18, 2016, extending condolences to the victims' families and affirming solidarity with against . Following India's announcement of surgical strikes on , U.S. officials recognized India's sovereign right to counter cross-border while emphasizing the need for restraint to avert broader conflict, without validating Pakistan's denials of involvement in the initial assault. The Secretary-General denounced the militant assault on the base, offering sympathies to the bereaved and underscoring that perpetrators must face justice, in line with recognizing the act as rather than endorsing alternative narratives. UN statements post-strikes urged de-escalation along the but maintained focus on combating without challenging India's self-defense claims. Russia expressed apprehension regarding the resurgence of terrorist incidents near the , including the Uri attack, linking it to prior events like Pathankot and implicitly critiquing Pakistan's role in regional instability without supporting Islamabad's counter-claims. Chinese positions condemned the Uri violence as while advocating bilateral dialogue and restraint, avoiding endorsement of Pakistan's assertions and prioritizing stability over partisan alignment. Among SAARC neighbors, countries such as affirmed India's legal rights to retaliate against sovereignty-violating attacks, reflecting broader regional acknowledgment of 's cross-border threats without deference to Pakistani denials.

Controversies and Debates

Disputes Over Evidence of Pakistani Involvement

India summoned the Pakistani on September 27, 2016, presenting a dossier that identified four (JeM) militants as the attackers, including their Pakistani origins, handlers such as Abdul Qayoom and family links to JeM chief , and training in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir camps like Sawai Nala and Markaz Taiba. The document, drawn from intelligence intercepts, forensic analysis of weapons traced to Pakistani stockpiles, and captured militant confessions, was briefed to UN Security Council members but not released in full publicly, prompting criticism for insufficient transparency to enable independent verification. Pakistan dismissed the dossier as unverified "information" lacking concrete proof of state complicity, with its Foreign Office spokesperson asserting on September 29, 2016, that no evidence linked Islamabad to the attack and accusing India of fabricating claims to justify escalation. Pakistani officials emphasized sovereignty over their territory and demanded forensic samples or international probes, while denying JeM's operational capacity without covert support, though they acknowledged the group's existence despite a 2002 ban. The evidentiary dispute hinges on public gaps versus classified intelligence; while forensic elements like Pakistani ammunition and attacker nationalities (confirmed via DNA and documents as hailing from Pakistan's region) provide circumstantial links, the absence of declassified intercepts limits causal attribution to state actors. Independent security assessments infer tolerance from JeM's resilience: despite UN sanctions and Pakistan's proscription, the group rebuilt infrastructure post-2002, evading crackdowns, as evidenced by its claimed responsibility for the Uri attack via Azhar's audio statement. This pattern aligns with the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) scrutiny of Pakistan's terror financing controls; grey-listed from June 2018 to October 2022 for failing to prosecute JeM leaders and disrupt networks, Pakistan's record suggests systemic leniency enabling groups like JeM to persist, though direct Uri causation remains unproven without broader disclosure. Indian assertions of "irrefutable" rest on non-shareable patterns, contrasted by Pakistani defenses and calls from entities like the U.S. for mutual restraint over unverified claims, highlighting credibility tensions in opaque bilateral intelligence-sharing.

Skepticism Regarding Surgical Strikes

Pakistan denied that Indian forces conducted surgical strikes across the on September 29, 2016, claiming instead that exchanges involved only artillery shelling and small-arms fire from Indian posts, resulting in the deaths of two Pakistani soldiers but no infiltration or targeted raids on militant camps. Pakistani military spokespersons, including Asim , asserted that their and ground sensors detected no crossings, and they invited international observers to verify the absence of damage at alleged strike sites. This refutation aligned with 's broader narrative minimizing cross-border militant activity, though independent assessments have noted Pakistan's historical reluctance to acknowledge such incursions to avoid domestic political fallout or escalation risks. Skepticism among international analysts and media stemmed primarily from the Indian government's decision not to release photographic, video, or forensic , such as body counts or strike footage, citing operational and the risk of compromising future missions. Critics, including some defense commentators, questioned the feasibility of unverified claims of 38 to 50 militants killed across seven sites, arguing that the lack of visible aftermath—like destroyed structures detectable via commercial —suggested limited or exaggerated impact, especially given the strikes targeted transient "soft" launch pads rather than hardened facilities. However, tactical analyses have countered that precision operations against mobile terrorist groups prioritize disruption over spectacle, with Indian accounts supported by internal GPS tracks and post-strike intelligence indicating disrupted infiltration patterns in subsequent months, though these remain classified and unshared publicly. The expressed tacit acceptance by urging de-escalation without disputing India's account, with State Department spokesperson John Kirby stating on September 30, 2016, that Washington was "aware of the reports" and encouraged both sides to reduce tensions, implicitly recognizing India's defensive rationale amid prior U.S. condemnations of Pakistan-based . No major neutral third-party satellite analysis confirmed activity spikes at the time, as commercial imagery providers like or did not publicly release data specific to the event, leaving the debate reliant on conflicting state narratives; Indian proponents emphasize the strikes' deterrent value evidenced by reduced Uri-sector attacks post-operation, while Pakistani minimization portrays them as routine border skirmishes to preserve strategic ambiguity. This evidentiary gap fueled broader debates on transparency in covert counter-terrorism, with some observers attributing skepticism to institutional biases in favoring restraint narratives over unilateral actions against state-sponsored threats.

Long-Term Impact

Shifts in Indian Counter-Terrorism Doctrine

The 2016 Uri attack on September 18, which resulted in the deaths of 19 personnel, catalyzed a doctrinal pivot in 's counter-terrorism strategy from longstanding "strategic restraint" to proactive pre-emption. Prior responses to major provocations, such as the that killed 166 civilians, had eschewed overt military retaliation to avoid escalation risks. In contrast, India authorized cross-LoC surgical strikes on September 29, 2016, targeting nine terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, neutralizing over 38 militants according to official briefings. This operation established a precedent for calibrated, intelligence-driven responses aimed at disrupting terror networks at their source, signaling that impunity for cross-border attacks would no longer be tolerated. This shift entrenched a policy of "punitive deterrence," where military action supplements diplomatic isolation and domestic reforms, influencing the 2019 Balakot airstrikes following the Pulwama attack that killed 40 CRPF personnel. The strikes demonstrated escalation beyond LoC limits, with Indian Air Force jets penetrating Pakistani airspace to bomb a Jaish-e-Mohammed camp, underscoring a rejection of passive defense in favor of offensive operations to degrade adversary capabilities. Government articulations emphasized that responses would be proportionate yet decisive, calibrated to minimize broader conflict while imposing costs on terror sponsors. Post-Uri measures included bolstering border surveillance through advanced technologies like unmanned aerial vehicles and integrated sensor grids along the LoC, alongside expanded training and rapid-response protocols. These enhancements aimed to preempt infiltrations, with data indicating heightened vigilance that foiled multiple bids in subsequent years. Politically, a cross-party consensus emerged to condition any dialogue on verifiable action against , delinking composite talks from terror cessation as a non-negotiable red line, as reiterated in official policy statements. This framework prioritized dismantling terror ecosystems over unconditional engagement, reshaping India's posture toward enduring threats.

Effects on India-Pakistan Relations

The 2016 Uri attack, followed by India's announcement of cross-border surgical strikes on , precipitated a marked deterioration in bilateral relations, manifesting in heightened military confrontations along the (LoC). Ceasefire violations surged post-incident, with Indian reports documenting 228 violations in 2016, escalating to 860 in 2017 and 1,629 in 2018, reflecting a pattern of reciprocal shelling and small-arms fire that strained the 2003 agreement. This spike underscored a shift toward militarized posturing, as both sides reinforced forward positions and increased troop deployments, perpetuating a cycle of tit-for-tat actions without de-escalatory mechanisms. Peace initiatives ground to a halt, with the composite dialogue framework—encompassing , , and other disputes—remaining indefinitely suspended, as confirmed by Pakistani officials in October 2016 amid mutual recriminations over the attack's origins. boycotted the scheduled SAARC summit in in November 2016, attributing the Uri assault to Pakistan-based militants and citing inadequate action against groups like , which prompted several member states to withdraw, effectively paralyzing the regional forum for multilateral engagement. These developments entrenched a diplomatic freeze, with no substantive bilateral talks resuming in the ensuing years, as trust eroded amid accusations of . Economically, the attack accelerated decoupling trends, though direct tariffs were limited initially; , already modest at around $2.5 billion annually, faced indirect pressures through heightened scrutiny and non-tariff barriers, foreshadowing sharper measures like India's 2019 revocation of most-favored-nation status. 's regional isolation deepened as prioritized alternative partnerships, including the revival of the in 2017 with the , , and , bypassing Pakistan-centric forums and emphasizing counter-terrorism cooperation outside South Asian structures. This realignment reflected India's causal prioritization of security over economic interdependence with , contributing to sustained bilateral antagonism without avenues for normalization.

References

  1. https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/27421/Pakistan%2BHigh%2BCommissioner%2BSummoned%2Bover%2BUri%2BAttack
  2. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1547615
  3. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=151242
  4. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37399969
  5. https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/27446/Transcript_of_Joint_Briefing_by_MEA_and_MoD_September_29_2016
  6. https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/09/262053.htm
  7. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA422346.pdf
  8. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/india-pakistan-and-the-kashmir-issue-1947-and-beyond/
  9. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2001/09/pakistans-role-in-the-kashmir-insurgency.html
  10. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/sr_527-2021_india-pakistan_ceasefire_origins_prospects_lessons_learned.pdf
  11. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35216716
  12. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/1/4/heavy-gunfire-as-indian-airbase-siege-enters-third-day
  13. https://mea.gov.in/lok-sabha.htm?dtl/26689/QUESTION_NO614_INVESTIGATION_INTO_PATHANKOT_ATTACK
  14. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/PW131-Ceasefire-Violations-in-Jammu-and-Kashmir-A-Line-on-Fire.pdf
  15. https://www.dni.gov/nctc/terrorist_groups/jem.html
  16. https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/country-information/rir/Pages/index.aspx?doc=455722&wbdisable=true
  17. https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2023/india
  18. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2007-0158_EN.html
  19. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/pols_pub/article/1028/&path_info=India_E2_80_99s_20Surgical_20Strikes_20__20Response_20to_20Strategic_20Imperatives.pdf
  20. https://www.idsa.in/publisher/issue-brief/uri-surgical-strikes-and-international-reactions/
  21. https://brighterkashmir.com/uri-attack-and-the-surgical-strike
  22. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/j-k-militants-attack-army-camp-in-uri-intense-firing-on/story-E80SgFSG1wt3X8aXfhPY9K.html
  23. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/uri-terror-attack-soldiers-dead-nia-probe-results-pakistan-lashkar-planned-3041576/
  24. https://www.huffpost.com/archive/in/entry/uri-soldiers-were-locked-in-cook-house-that-was-set-on-fire-rep_a_21476124
  25. https://www.facebook.com/nationalportalofindia/posts/nine-years-on-remembering-the-uriattack-onthisday-18-september-2016-18-indianbra/1243579811137326/
  26. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Bihar-announces-Rs.-5-lakh-to-soldiers-martyred-in-Uri-attack/article14533126.ece
  27. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/uri-attack-most-soldiers-killed-in-tent-fire-1460091
  28. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2016/Sep/18/why-were-the-uri-soldiers-sleeping-in-tents-in-the-first-place-1521419.html
  29. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/9/18/17-indian-soldiers-killed-in-attack-on-kashmir-base
  30. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/18/asia/india-kashmir-attack
  31. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/uri-terror-attack-nia-files-fir-begins-probe/articleshow/54424217.cms
  32. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2016/Sep/20/uri-terror-attack-nia-to-collect-dna-samples-of-militants-to-ascertain-identities-1521745.html
  33. https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/clinching-evidence-uri-attackers-belongings-sent-for-forensic-tests-to-nail-pakistan/articleshow/54725407.cms
  34. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/270916/india-summons-pakistan-hc-presents-proof-of-pakistani-origin-of-uri-attack.html
  35. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/uri-attack-india-unlikely-to-give-pathankot-like-offer-to-pakistan/articleshow/54467866.cms
  36. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/uri-terror-attack-two-point-breach-helped-terrorists-access-army-camp/articleshow/54398809.cms
  37. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/uri-attack-specific-intelligence-inputs-ib-alert-army-units-341740-2016-09-18
  38. https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/nia-to-use-satellite-images-of-attack-site/articleshow/54417047.cms
  39. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/jk-nia-file-chargesheet-uri-terror-attack-1122500-2018-01-04
  40. https://www.idsa.in/publisher/issuebrief/uri-surgical-strikes-and-international-reactions
  41. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/5/1/profile-what-is-jaish-e-muhammad
  42. https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/uri-terror-attack-two-point-breach-helped-terrorists-access-army-camp/articleshow/54402989.cms
  43. https://www.satp.org/terrorism-update/jem-terrorists-behind-uri-attack-had-items-with-pakistani-markings-says-army
  44. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/jammu-and-kashmir/story/uri-attack-radio-sets-gps-devices-recovered-from-terrorists-may-hold-key-to-investigations-342501-2016-09-22
  45. https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/terrorist_outfits/jem2016.htm
  46. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/9/30/surgical-strikes-pakistan-rejects-indias-claims
  47. https://www.icwa.in/show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&ls_id=1927&lid=538
  48. https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019
  49. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47366718
  50. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/pakistan-infiltration-attempts-indian-army-surgical-strikes-line-of-control-jammu-and-kashmir-uri-poonch-pok-3055874/
  51. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Target-terror-India-strikes-across-LoC/article15006525.ece
  52. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/clips-reveal-surgical-strike-details/articleshow/64786298.cms
  53. https://www.indiatoday.in/programme/5ive-live/video/full-video-of-surgical-strikes-out-for-the-first-time-1350808-2018-09-27
  54. https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/homepage2/kashmir-pakistani-soliders-killed-india-surgical-strikes
  55. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/world/asia/kashmir-pakistan-india.html
  56. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37702790
  57. https://www.orfonline.org/research/surgical-strikes-and-deterrence-stability-in-south-asia
  58. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37492352
  59. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/After-India-Bangladesh-Bhutan-pull-out-of-SAARC-summit/article55913264.ece
  60. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/regional-saarc-summit-postponed-amid-rising-pakistani-indian-tensions-idUSKCN120252/
  61. https://www.voanews.com/a/pakistan-says-saarc-summit-postponed/3532330.html
  62. https://www.idsa.in/publisher/comments/cancellation-of-the-saarc-summit-has-india-succeeded-in-isolating-pakistan-regionally
  63. https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/saarc-summit-cancellation-will-sting-pakistan-but-wont-prevent-the-next-uri-or-pathankot/
  64. http://www.dawn.com/news/1286684
  65. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/India-likely-to-suspend-Indus-water-commission-talks/article55932698.ece
  66. https://dialogue.earth/en/water/india-suspends-indus-commissioners-meetings/
  67. http://www.dawn.com/news/1286293
  68. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-between-india-and-pakistan
  69. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/27/pakistan-expels-indian-diplomat-surjeet-singh
  70. https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/surgical-strikes-pakistan-indian-army-modi-government-bjp-344945-2016-10-04
  71. https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/india-pakistan-tensions-surge-following-deadly-kashmir-attack
  72. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/modi-gave-hint-of-indus-treaty-rethink-after-uri-attack/articleshow/97382955.cms
  73. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/10/02/after-surgical-strikes-whats-next-for-india-pakistan-relations/
  74. https://m.economictimes.com/nation-world/uri-response-india-hits-back-after-11-days/we-condemn-this-attack-nawaz-sharif/slideshow/54580635.cms
  75. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/uri-attack-nawaz-sharif-says-india-has-habit-of-blaming-pakistan/
  76. https://mofa.gov.pk/record-of-the-press-briefing-by-spokesperson-on-29-september-2016
  77. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/use-of-alibis-not-going-to-work-india-on-pak-pms-uri-remarks-1466208
  78. https://www.huffpost.com/archive/in/entry/uri-attack-could-be-a-reaction-to-situation-in-kashmir-says-n_a_21478357
  79. https://www.newslaundry.com/2016/09/21/how-the-pakistani-urdu-press-reported-the-uri-attack
  80. https://scroll.in/article/816935/pakistans-media-was-outraged-that-india-would-blame-their-nation-for-the-uri-attacks
  81. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-america-cant-escape-its-role-in-the-conflict-between-india-and-pakistan/
  82. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/statement-of-spokesperson-secretary-general-attack-indian-army-base-uri
  83. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/condemning-uri-terror-attack-france-russia-score-direct-hits-against-pakistan/articleshow/54429098.cms
  84. https://indiawrites.org/diplomacy/world-reacted-indias-surgical-strikes/
  85. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-summons-pak-envoy-gives-proof-on-uri-attack-names-terror-guides-1467115
  86. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Uri-attack-India-provides-evidence-of-involvement-of-Pakistan-based-terrorists/article14609944.ece
  87. https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/27434/transcript%2Bof%2Bweekly%2Bmedia%2Bbriefing%2Bby
  88. https://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/india-shared-information-about-uri-not-evidence-pakistan-3056795/
  89. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/pakistan-escapes-fatf-grey-list-risks-clash-its-jihadists
  90. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/publications/Comprehensive-Update-on-Terrorist-Financing-Risks-2025.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf
  91. https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2021/pakistan
  92. https://quwa.org/daily-news/analysts-skeptical-indias-surgical-strikes-claim/
  93. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/world/asia/kashmir-india-pakistan.html
  94. https://sundayguardianlive.com/editors-choice/from-uri-to-doctrine-how-2016-changed-indias-counter-terror-playbook-138164/
  95. https://jamestown.org/program/surgical-strikes-mark-change-indias-stance-cross-border-attacks/
  96. https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/indias-new-counter-terror-doctrine-coping-with-nuclear-impunity/
  97. https://www.idsa.in/publisher/issuebrief/indian-special-forces-operations-since-2014-key-inferences
  98. https://www.vifindia.org/2024/june/21/Major-Shift-in-India-s-Counter-Terrorism-Policy-Over-the-Last-10-Years
  99. https://openthemagazine.com/cover-stories/the-modi-doctrine-on-terror-and-war
  100. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/over-2050-ceasefire-violations-by-pakistan-killed-21-this-year-mea-5996975/
  101. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2018/10/ceasefire-violations-in-kashmir-a-war-by-other-means?lang=en
  102. https://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/no-backdoor-diplomacy-with-india-composite-dialogue-remains-suspended-pakistan/
  103. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35994599
  104. https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/from-the-india-today-archives-2016-how-to-punish-pakistan-2714044-2025-04-24
  105. https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/views/views/india-pakistan-conflict-implications-for-south-asia
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.