ISLAMABAD: In recent years, the term “surgical strike” has entered the lexicon of Indian military and political discourse with remarkable frequency.
Portrayed as a demonstration of precision, resolve, and strategic brilliance, this term has been marketed aggressively to domestic and international audiences alike.
However, upon closer scrutiny, it becomes abundantly clear that the so-called “surgical strikes” claimed by India are neither surgical in execution nor strategically significant in outcome.
Rather, they represent a deliberate attempt to infuse battlefield language with Bollywood flair, aimed at satisfying domestic political appetites, indulging nationalist fantasies, and, above all, feeding the inflated ego of a saffronised Indian state.
What is a surgical strike?
The concept of a “surgical strike” in modern military parlance denotes a highly precise, targeted operation carried out with minimal collateral damage and a significant strategic impact.
“They represent a deliberate attempt to infuse battlefield language with Bollywood flair, aimed at satisfying domestic political appetites, indulging nationalist fantasies, and, above all, feeding the inflated ego of a saffronised Indian state”
It is meant to convey clinical efficiency, tactical superiority, and often, an ability to strike deep into enemy territory with near-surgical precision.
However, India’s use of this term stands in stark contrast to its actual military actions.
The term has been inflated and sensationalised by a government-media complex that appears more interested in optics than operational realities.
This is not without precedent.
The United States’ doctrine of “shock and awe,” unveiled during the 2003 Iraq War, similarly aimed to overwhelm the enemy through displays of massive firepower intended to paralyse opposition. While criticised for its performative value, “shock and awe” at least involved actual concentrated firepower and was broadcast openly as a psychological strategy.
A hollow construct
In India’s case, the “surgical strike” is a much hollower construct—an elaborate fiction designed for mass consumption and nationalist validation.
Consider the so-called surgical strike of June 9, 2015.
India claimed to have conducted a cross-border raid into Myanmar, targeting insurgents from the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K). What actually transpired was a limited hot pursuit operation, not unlike what numerous militaries around the world have conducted quietly for decades.
Yet, this routine tactical action was immediately labelled a “surgical strike” and publicised as a symbol of a newly assertive India under Modi.
No new doctrine was at play, no significant military innovation occurred—only a new marketing strategy aimed at stroking nationalist pride.
This trend intensified following the 2016 Uri attack, after which India claimed it had conducted surgical strikes across the Line of Control into Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The Indian media—dubbed “Modi media” by critics—went into overdrive. These small-scale limited fire raids, without an inch of incursion, were “turned into the stuff of nationalist legend”.
Glitter not grit
Films were made, speeches delivered, and the new chapter of India’s imagined military prowess was written in glitter, not grit.
The most farcical moment came in February 2019, after the Pulwama attack. India launched airstrikes on what it claimed was a terrorist training camp in Balakot.
“Films were made, speeches delivered, and the new chapter of India’s imagined military prowess was written in glitter, not grit”
Yet, post-strike assessments showed that the operation damaged a few trees and, infamously, killed a solitary crow.
Despite the absence of any verifiable militant casualties or structural damage, this operation too was hailed as a “surgical strike”.
The intention was clear: to create political space for the BJP ahead of elections, to rally nationalist sentiment, and to project strength where there was little substance.
A hyper-nationalist India
The term “surgical strike” was invoked not to inform but to impress, to satisfy the collective ego of a hyper-nationalist India increasingly unable to distinguish between fact and fiction.
What is most troubling is not the exaggeration itself, but the motivation behind it.
“The term “surgical strike” was invoked not to inform but to impress, to satisfy the collective ego of a hyper-nationalist India increasingly unable to distinguish between fact and fiction”
The militarisation of language has been synchronised with the ideological aims of the Hindutva movement. Saffronised narratives glorify any act, no matter how minor or routine, as a triumph of Indian will.
The professional military knows better.
They understand that these are tactical actions, limited in scope, lacking in strategic depth, and often insignificant in altering the balance of power.
Yet, in a political environment where dissent from the party line is discouraged, even military professionals are forced to parrot phrases they would privately scoff at.
Weaponisation of language
This weaponisation of language is dangerous.
It reduces the seriousness of military operations to the level of cinematic fantasy.
It confuses domestic populations about the nature of conflict, fosters unrealistic expectations, and obscures the need for genuine strategic thinking.
Worse, it risks provoking real escalation on false pretences.
The region of South Asia is already volatile, and turning border skirmishes into box office stories only inflames tensions.
Let us be clear: by adopting and repeating the term “surgical strike,” we are not advancing clarity—we are legitimising a dangerous myth.
We are playing into a carefully constructed propaganda effort meant not to achieve peace, but to project power and soothe nationalist insecurities.
We are, in effect, satisfying the Indian ego rather than describing any real military accomplishment.
Intellectually dishonest and strategically reckless
This is not just intellectually dishonest—it is strategically reckless.
It is time to reject this vocabulary trap.
These so-called surgical strikes are nothing more than limited military acts—no different in form or outcome than hundreds of similar actions undertaken in other conflict zones around the world.
There is no need to glorify them, and certainly no justification for dressing them up in the language of spectacle.
“It is time to reject this vocabulary trap”
India’s leadership should reflect deeply on the ethical and strategic cost of reducing military action to political theatre.
Soundbites and movie plots
If anything, India should be embarrassed that its claims of battlefield superiority have been reduced to soundbites, movie plots, and viral hashtags.
War is not theatre, and the lives of soldiers and civilians deserve more than narrative manipulation.
Until there is a collective effort to call out this linguistic charade, the myth of the “surgical strike” will continue to serve its real purpose: not to protect borders, but to protect RSS political power.
