Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

2016 Pathankot attack

The 2016 Pathankot attack was a terrorist operation targeting the Station at in state, launched in the early hours of 2 January by four heavily armed militants affiliated with , a -based Sunni Islamist group designated as terrorist by multiple governments. The assailants, who infiltrated from the nearby international border with , initiated gunfire and grenade attacks on the perimeter, prompting a multi-agency counter-operation involving the , , and state police that extended over four days until 5 January. All four militants were neutralized, but the engagement resulted in seven Indian security personnel killed and eleven injured, exposing lapses in perimeter defense and intelligence coordination at a strategic military asset housing fighter jets and transport aircraft. The incident, occurring shortly after a brief thaw in - relations, led to heightened bilateral accusations, with providing forensic to implicating JeM leadership, though subsequent investigations yielded limited cross-border cooperation.

Background

Geopolitical and Historical Context

The 2016 Pathankot attack occurred amid longstanding geopolitical tensions between India and Pakistan, rooted in the 1947 partition of British India, which created two nuclear-armed states with unresolved territorial disputes, particularly over Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan's military doctrine has emphasized asymmetric warfare through support for Islamist militant groups to challenge India's control in Kashmir, compensating for conventional military disadvantages following defeats in the 1947-48, 1965, and 1971 wars. Cross-border infiltration from Pakistan's Punjab province into India's Punjab region, including Pathankot district—located just 30 kilometers from the international border—has facilitated numerous terrorist incursions, exploiting porous terrain and historical smuggling routes. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), the Pakistan-based Sunni jihadist group responsible for the Pathankot assault, exemplifies this strategy; founded in 2000 by after his release in the 1999 hijacking, JeM seeks to establish Pakistani sovereignty over through suicide bombings and attacks on military targets. Despite international designations as a terrorist organization by the and the , JeM has operated with tacit tolerance from elements within Pakistan's (ISI), enabling recruitment, training, and launches from safe havens in and provinces. This pattern of state-linked proxy terrorism has persisted despite diplomatic overtures, as evidenced by prior attacks like the 2001 Indian Parliament assault and the 2008 Mumbai siege, which strained bilateral ties without curbing militant activities. In the lead-up to the January 2, 2016, attack, India-Pakistan relations showed fleeting optimism following Narendra Modi's surprise December 25, 2015, visit to to meet Pakistani , signaling potential for dialogue on and . However, the subsequent incursion—claimed initially by a Kashmir-based coalition but traced to JeM operatives who infiltrated via the —underscored the fragility of such gestures against entrenched militant networks, derailing planned foreign secretary-level talks and reinforcing India's accusations of Pakistani complicity in cross-border violence.

Intelligence Warnings and Security Preparations

Indian intelligence agencies received inputs indicating a likely terrorist attempt to infiltrate military installations in the sector, prompting initial security enhancements at the Air Force Station (AFS) . These warnings were circulated ahead of the attack, leading to the issuance of arms and ammunition to air warriors for asset protection, deployment of Garud Special Forces at key points, and initiation of aerial surveillance using night-vision and thermal imaging via remotely piloted , C-130J, and helicopters. A critical early indicator occurred in the early hours of January 1, 2016, when militants hijacked the car of Punjab Police Superintendent Salwinder Singh near the border, approximately 30 kilometers from the airbase. Singh's distress call to a colleague was initially treated as an armed robbery rather than a terrorist precursor, delaying recognition of the threat; the location was only pinpointed as in the afternoon, over 12 hours later. (NIA) probes later established that the terrorists had reached the base vicinity by the morning of January 1 and infiltrated the perimeter by midnight, ahead of a National Security Advisor meeting at 7:30 PM that analyzed the inputs, underscoring a lag in actionable response. Security preparations at the AFS included elevating the alert status, but subsequent (IAF) Court of Inquiry revealed significant deficiencies despite the forewarnings. No comprehensive defense plan was formulated or executed, with failures to detect intruder traces such as scaling ropes, discarded clothing, and food remnants; guard posts were undermanned, floodlights and surveillance systems remained non-operational, and standard operating procedures for high-alert scenarios were violated. These gaps, compounded by absent coverage and limited inter-agency coordination between the airbase and local , left the 24-kilometer perimeter—secured by a mere 3-meter —vulnerable to breach. The Garud commandos, though deployed, were inadequately prepared for the scale of intrusion.

The Attack

Infiltration and Initial Engagement

The four militants, affiliated with the Pakistan-based terrorist group, crossed the India- international border into state prior to the assault, exploiting vulnerabilities near the Air Force Station despite available intelligence indicating a likely infiltration attempt. The border crossing occurred in a sector proximate to the base, approximately 30 kilometers from , where security fencing and patrols exist but gaps persist due to terrain and resource constraints. Initial engagement commenced in the pre-dawn hours of January 2, 2016, as the militants advanced toward the base perimeter and opened fire on Indian security personnel, initiating a firefight that alerted forces to the breach. The attackers, armed with automatic weapons, grenades, and possibly suicide vests, targeted outer defenses, killing at least two security personnel in the opening exchanges and prompting a defensive response from local and units stationed nearby. This phase saw the militants penetrate an auxiliary area of the station before deeper incursions, with exchanges of gunfire reported starting around 3:30 a.m. .

Timeline of the Assault

The assault on the Pathankot Air Force Station commenced in the early morning hours of 2 January 2016, when six heavily armed militants, suspected to be affiliated with , breached the perimeter after killing a gate sentry and entered the facility. Indian security forces, including personnel, immediately engaged the intruders in intense gun battles that lasted throughout the day. By evening, four militants had been neutralized, but five DSC jawans were killed in the exchanges, with the militants using automatic weapons, grenades, and possibly explosives to target administrative buildings and attempt deeper penetration. On 3 January, (NSG) commandos and reinforced the operation, conducting room-to-room searches and combing the base's extensive 2,000-acre grounds, including areas where militants had taken cover. The remaining two militants were killed during these engagements, but security personnel suffered further losses, including one NSG commando killed while defusing an and one Garud commando from a blast; sporadic firing and explosions persisted as forces cleared potential hideouts. Operations extended into 4 January with heavy gunfire reported as troops pursued lingering threats and neutralized booby traps, during which Lt. Col. Niranjan Kumar Ekka, an NSG officer, was killed by a from a corpse. Combing and sanitization efforts continued on 5 January to ensure the base was secure, marking the effective end of the assault phase after approximately 80 hours of conflict, with all six militants confirmed dead and no successful breach of the technical area containing aircraft. In total, the attack resulted in seven Indian security personnel killed, highlighting the militants' use of suicide tactics and the challenges of securing a vast perimeter near the .

Response and Neutralization

Indian Security Forces' Operations

The Indian security forces' response to the Pathankot attack, which began in the early hours of January 2, 2016, involved an initial engagement by local Punjab Police and personnel at the airbase perimeter, where Superintendent of Police Gagan Jakhar and four DSC guards were killed in the first firefight. The Indian Army's 226th Infantry Brigade, under the 22nd Infantry Division, quickly deployed to cordon off a 14-kilometer perimeter around the 1,900-acre facility, preventing further infiltration while provided specialized support for securing air assets and conducting reconnaissance in dense vegetation. The (NSG) was airlifted to the site with approximately 300 commandos, starting with an advance team led by Dushyant Singh on January 2, followed by additional units of 80 commandos each over the next days; NSG took operational command for counter-terrorism, employing MP-5 assault rifles, pistols, corner-shot weapons, and wall-busting explosive charges to breach hideouts in the DSC family quarters and forested areas. Surgical operations, coordinated with Army infantry combat vehicles, attack helicopters, and earthmovers to clear cover, confined the six terrorists to a 250-meter radius over 38 hours within the broader four-day effort. Neutralization proceeded incrementally: two terrorists were killed on using heavy and explosives to demolish a hideout, with the remaining four engaged through combing sweeps aided by thermal imaging and assaults, culminating in the death of the last terrorist on January 5 after intermittent firing; recovered arms included five rifles, three pistols, grenades, and explosives. The protected 3,000 families and key aircraft, though it faced challenges from the base's expansive terrain and coordination gaps between services.

Casualties and Material Damage

The attack resulted in the deaths of seven Indian security personnel, comprising four from the , one Garud commando from the , one from the , and one Punjab Police , along with four terrorists neutralized by Indian forces. Approximately 17 Indian personnel sustained injuries during the four-day operation to clear the intruders. No civilian deaths were directly attributed to the assault on the airbase itself, though separate compensation schemes were invoked for affected locals. Material damage to the Pathankot Air Force Station was limited, with no destruction of aircraft, hangars, or critical military assets reported; the militants, armed with AK-47s, grenades, and improvised explosive devices, focused on infiltration and but were contained before broader . Some peripheral structures and perimeter fencing incurred bullet impacts and minor explosive effects, but operations at the base resumed without long-term disruption to its strategic capabilities. The absence of significant infrastructural losses underscored the effectiveness of the defensive perimeter and rapid reinforcement, despite initial breaches.

Investigations and Evidence

Indian Forensic and Intelligence Findings

The (NIA), leading the probe into the January 2, 2016, attack on the Air Force Station, recovered weapons including rifles, M-4 carbines, grenades marked with the Pakistani brand "," and improvised explosive devices from the site, with ballistic analysis indicating their use in the assault and origins traceable to Pakistani military stockpiles or smuggling routes. GPS devices found on the terrorists' bodies contained waypoints documenting infiltration paths originating from Pakistan's province, crossing the near the international border before heading toward . Forensic examination of preserved body tissues from four slain militants yielded DNA profiles matching Pakistani nationals, with no evidence supporting claims of additional attackers beyond this number, as confirmed by post-mortem and site DNA sweeps. Intelligence intercepts and cyber forensics, aided by U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) analysis of communication footprints, traced handler directives to Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) operatives in Pakistan, including voice samples and satellite phone logs coordinating the militants' movements from training camps in Bahawalpur. The NIA's December 19, 2016, charge sheet formally accused JeM chief Maulana Masood Azhar, his brother Rauf Asghar Alvi, and two associates—Khalid Ahmad Wani (a JeM trainer) and Nauman alias Abu Hanzalah—of masterminding the plot, citing recovered documents, explosive residue matching JeM signature tactics from prior attacks, and confessions extracted from interrogated JeM affiliates linking the operation to retaliation for the 2015 arrest of Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi's associates. These findings, shared with Pakistan's Joint Investigation Team (JIT) during their March 2016 site visit, included Pakistani-made ammunition and attire, underscoring cross-border facilitation despite Islamabad's denials of state involvement. Indian assessments emphasized JeM's operational autonomy under ISI tolerance, with forensic traces of high-grade RDX explosives—sourced via Pakistani supply chains—contradicting claims of purely non-state actors, as similar materiel appeared in JeM's 2001 Parliament attack. While NIA investigations ruled out local insider complicity through polygraphs and surveillance reviews, gaps in real-time allowed undetected entry, highlighting vulnerabilities in border electronic fencing. The evidence corpus, comprising over 1,000 witness statements and , positioned the attack as a directed JeM fidayeen operation, with no verifiable ties to Indian domestic groups despite initial speculation.

Pakistan's Joint Investigation Team and Cooperation Claims

Following the January 2, 2016, attack on the airbase, established a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) on January 5, 2016, comprising representatives from its , police, and military intelligence to probe 's allegations of cross-border terrorism by (JeM) militants. The team was formed after shared preliminary evidence, including coordinates of the attackers' infiltration route from and intercepts linking the operation to JeM handlers based in . The Pakistani JIT visited from March 28 to April 1, 2016, at New Delhi's invitation, to access the attack site and coordinate with 's (NIA). During the visit, the team toured the airbase, examined forensic evidence such as weapons and ammunition traced to Pakistani origin, recorded statements from over 100 witnesses including security personnel, and received briefings on NIA findings like DNA matches to Pakistani nationals and communication logs implicating JeM chief Masood Azhar's relatives. In turn, the JIT shared limited details on actions taken in , including surveillance of JeM affiliates, though Indian officials noted the information was preliminary and lacked specifics on prosecutions. Pakistan's government asserted the JIT's engagement demonstrated cooperation, with officials claiming it would lead to arrests and trials of suspects in Pakistan. However, subsequent Pakistani media reports, citing unnamed JIT sources, alleged the attack appeared "staged" by Indian forces as a operation to malign Pakistan, pointing to purported inconsistencies like the militants' prolonged survival and lack of immediate Indian response. These claims, disseminated in outlets like Pakistan's Jang newspaper, contradicted forensic evidence presented to the JIT, such as Pakistani-made AK-47 rifles and M4 carbines recovered from the site, and were dismissed by Indian investigators as unsubstantiated denialism amid Pakistan's history of shielding JeM leaders. Post-visit, Pakistan arrested several JeM-linked individuals, including Azhar's brother Ammar and nephew , in April 2016, but released them without charges by , citing insufficient evidence—a move Indian sources attributed to pressure from Pakistan's rather than genuine investigative shortcomings. The JIT's final report, not publicly released, reportedly reiterated 's stance of non-involvement, with no prosecutions materializing despite India's repeated demands for action against named handlers, underscoring persistent asymmetries in bilateral counter-terrorism cooperation.

Controversies

Indian Security and Intelligence Failures

Specific intelligence inputs regarding a potential terrorist attack in the sector were available to Indian prior to the incident on , 2016, including general alerts on cross-border infiltration shared through the Multi Agency Centre mechanism. However, these warnings failed to prevent the undetected border crossing by the militants or their evasion of authorities in the subsequent hours, reflecting shortcomings in intelligence integration, processing, and timely dissemination to operational units. A subsequent Indian Air Force Court of Inquiry identified multiple security lapses at the Pathankot Air Force Station, including the absence of a comprehensive defense plan despite the high alert status triggered by prior intelligence, which allowed militants to scale the perimeter wall using ropes and tree branches without detection. Vulnerable gaps in the perimeter fencing, inadequate floodlighting, and unmaintained guard posts contributed to the initial breach, where militants overpowered and killed five Defence Security Corps personnel in the early stages. Command and control deficiencies exacerbated the response, with Garud Commandos unable to promptly isolate the intruders due to inadequate preparation and violations of standard operating procedures, such as malfunctioning surveillance systems and failure to detect militants' discarded items like food packets. The operation extended over four days, highlighting delays in neutralizing the threat despite reinforcements from the and other forces. A parliamentary standing later criticized the counter-terrorism for these lapses, noting the absence of post-attack to address recurring vulnerabilities in defending military installations. In response to the inquiry's findings, J.S. Dhamoon, the base commander, was indicted for command failures and accepted premature retirement, while Garud units were redeployed for counter-insurgency training to address preparedness gaps. The episode underscored systemic issues in translating into fortified , prompting broader reviews of airbase defenses across .

Alleged Pakistani State Sponsorship via ISI

Indian officials alleged that the of facilitated the attack by providing logistical support, training, and safe havens to (JeM) operatives, the group identified as responsible. The (NIA) determined that the four attackers were nationals from province, trained in JeM camps near , with weapons and GPS devices bearing markings recovered from the site. Forensic analysis by agencies linked explosive residues and communication devices to suppliers in , suggesting state-enabled cross-border infiltration. Voice intercepts captured during the assault revealed the militants coordinating with handlers in , including instructions on evasion tactics and promises of reinforcements, which intelligence attributed to ISI-linked networks due to the precision of operational details and prior patterns of JeM-ISI collaboration. compiled a shared with on January 14, 2016, containing DNA profiles, call records, and satellite imagery of training sites, asserting ISI's role in harboring JeM chief and enabling the infiltration via the porous - border. Pakistani authorities, through their Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that visited in March 2016, dismissed these claims as unsubstantiated, maintaining that the perpetrators acted as rogue non-state actors without official backing. Supporting these allegations, former Pakistani President stated on February 11, 2016, that the —not the military—conducts training for JeM and militants, acknowledging the agency's historical involvement in such groups as a of strategic depth against . diplomats cited this admission to underscore systemic state sponsorship, noting JeM's revival under Azhar—freed in a 1999 Pakistani-orchestrated —in -protected enclaves. Analysts, including former U.S. officials, have argued that the attack's sophistication, including encrypted communications and specialized weaponry, aligns with 's warfare , where deniability is maintained through cutouts like JeM. Despite repeated requests for action against Azhar and JeM infrastructure, Pakistan's failure to prosecute or dismantle these networks fueled perceptions of complicity.

Impact and Aftermath

Strain on India-Pakistan Bilateral Relations

The 2016 Pathankot attack, occurring on January 2 just eight days after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's surprise visit to on December 25, 2015, severely undermined the fragile thaw in bilateral ties. Modi's unannounced meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister had signaled potential for renewed comprehensive dialogue, including planned foreign secretary-level talks. However, the assault on the base, attributed by Indian officials to the Pakistan-based (JeM), prompted India to share specific intelligence dossiers implicating Pakistani territory and handlers, demanding immediate action against the militants and their supporters. Pakistan condemned the attack and pledged cooperation, with Sharif's government forming a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) that visited in March 2016 to examine evidence. Despite this, bilateral engagement faltered as insisted any dialogue prioritize over broader issues like , leading to the mutual postponement of scheduled foreign secretary talks on January 15, 2016. National Security Advisers maintained some contact, but the differing priorities—'s focus on actionable counter-terror measures versus Pakistan's push for a holistic agenda—exposed irreconcilable gaps, effectively stalling the comprehensive bilateral dialogue process initiated post-Modi visit. The episode reinforced India's longstanding position that sustained talks cannot coexist with cross-border terrorism, fostering skepticism about Pakistan's commitment amid repeated JeM activities from safe havens in province. While limited meetings resumed sporadically, such as foreign secretaries' discussions in April 2016 centered on , the JIT's later findings—claiming insufficient evidence linking to Pakistani entities—further eroded trust, contributing to a broader diplomatic freeze that persisted until subsequent attacks like in September 2016 prompted more decisive Indian responses. This strain highlighted the causal link between unchecked terror infrastructure and recurrent disruptions in normalization efforts.

Domestic Reforms and Counter-Terrorism Lessons

The Pathankot attack exposed significant deficiencies in India's internal security apparatus, particularly in intelligence dissemination, inter-agency coordination, and perimeter defense at military installations. Despite prior intelligence inputs warning of potential fidayeen attacks around the New Year period, the response was hampered by delays in alerting and mobilizing specialized units like the (NSG), with commandos taking over 10 hours to reach the site from their bases. Local Punjab Police and the (DSC), primarily composed of retired personnel, failed to effectively contain the initial infiltration, allowing terrorists to breach the airbase perimeter through overgrown vegetation and weak fencing. A subsequent Court of Inquiry identified serious lapses, including inadequate surveillance, insufficient manpower, and procedural shortcomings in threat assessment and rapid reaction protocols. Key counter-terrorism lessons emphasized the need for proactive over mere collection, addressing systemic knowledge gaps about militant tactics and state sponsorship patterns to enable policy-driven prevention. The operation highlighted coordination breakdowns among the , , , and central forces, underscoring the limitations of siloed structures like the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) in real-time threat sharing. Operationally, the four-day revealed vulnerabilities in sustaining prolonged engagements against heavily armed intruders, with lessons focusing on enhancing rapid deployment capabilities and training for hybrid threats combining infiltration and standoff attacks. In response, the Indian government directed operational reforms, including a comprehensive review of security at over 60 airbases and army installations, leading to upgraded perimeter defenses such as advanced fencing, motion sensors, and clearance of obstructive vegetation like nationwide. The IAF bolstered its Garud commandos' roles in base security, while directives were issued to phase out reliance on under-equipped personnel in favor of specialized, younger forces with improved weaponry and night-vision capabilities. These measures reinforced post-2008 reforms by prioritizing integrated command centers and simulated drills for multi-force responses, though critics noted persistent bureaucratic hurdles in fully implementing intelligence-policy linkages.

Reactions

Indian Official and Public Responses

Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the attack and, during a telephone conversation with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on January 5, 2016, emphasized the need for Pakistan to undertake "firm and immediate action" against the perpetrators, whom Indian intelligence linked to the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed militant group. The Indian government attributed the assault to cross-border terrorism sponsored from Pakistan, with initial intelligence indicating infiltration by six heavily armed militants who breached the airbase perimeter in the early hours of January 2, 2016. In response, National Security Advisor coordinated a multi-agency counter-operation involving the , , and other forces, which lasted approximately four days and resulted in the neutralization of all six attackers, though seven Indian security personnel were killed and several injured. Officials acknowledged and perimeter security shortcomings in post-incident reviews, prompting internal probes into lapses that allowed the militants to hold positions within the base for an extended period. Public reaction in India was marked by widespread outrage and grief, with media coverage highlighting the attack's audacity near the Pakistan border and fueling demands for robust retaliation against . Opposition leaders and citizens expressed frustration over the prolonged operation and perceived vulnerabilities, viewing the incident as a stark reminder of ongoing threats from Pakistan-based groups, though some praised the eventual success in eliminating the intruders without broader escalation. The event intensified national discourse on counter-terrorism preparedness, contributing to calls for enhanced border vigilance and diplomatic pressure on .

Pakistani Denials and Counter-Narratives

The condemned the 2016 Pathankot attack shortly after it occurred on January 2, stating that it opposed all forms of and offering cooperation in the . Pakistani officials, including Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, emphasized that required concrete evidence from before taking action against any suspects, dismissing premature accusations as unsubstantiated. In response to Indian claims linking the attackers to Pakistan-based (JeM), Pakistan formed a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) on January 5, comprising representatives from its agencies including the (ISI), , and Punjab police, which visited from March 24 to 29 to examine evidence such as GPS devices and phone intercepts. Pakistan denied any state sponsorship of the militants, asserting that the JIT's findings would determine culpability and rejecting Indian assertions of ISI orchestration as lacking proof. The JIT interrogated arrested JeM operatives in Pakistan and conducted over 23 raids, leading to the detention of more than a dozen suspects, including family members of JeM leader , whom India accused of masterminding the assault. Pakistani counter-narratives portrayed the incident as potentially stemming from India's lapses rather than cross-border infiltration, with officials noting discrepancies in Indian-provided evidence, such as unverified communication intercepts, and urging impartial verification to avoid politicization. Prime Minister's Adviser on and , Tariq Fatemi, highlighted Pakistan's anti-terrorism efforts, including operations against militants, as evidence against allegations of complicity. These denials aligned with Pakistan's broader stance of non-involvement in cross-border terrorism while acknowledging the presence of non-state actors like JeM operating independently within its territory, a position critics viewed skeptically given historical patterns of selective crackdowns on groups targeting . The JIT report, submitted to Pakistan's Punjab High Court in July 2016, questioned the authenticity of some forensic evidence and recommended further probes, reinforcing Islamabad's narrative that Indian claims were exaggerated for diplomatic leverage.

International Statements and Positions

China condemned the attack on January 4, 2016, describing it as an armed assault aimed at sabotaging the emerging momentum in -Pakistan relations following recent bilateral engagements. Sri Lanka's issued a strong condemnation of the terrorist assault on the base, expressing condolences to the families of the deceased security personnel and affirming solidarity with 's counter-terrorism efforts. In subsequent U.S.-India counter-terrorism dialogues, American officials reiterated firm backing for 's campaign against groups like , explicitly referencing the Pathankot operation as evidence of ongoing threats from Pakistan-based militants. The did not issue a dedicated press statement or resolution on the incident, though invoked it in later and Sixth Committee addresses to underscore cross-border terrorism patterns.

References

  1. [1]
    Attack on Armed Forces - Press Release: Press Information Bureau
    Jul 17, 2019 · One incident of a terrorist attack on the Air Force took place on the intervening night of 01/02 January, 2016 at Air Force Station Pathankot.
  2. [2]
    Timeline Terrorist Activities, Punjab - South Asia Terrorism Portal
    12 persons, including seven Security Force (SF) personnel and four suspected Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) militants were killed in a coordinated terror attack in ...<|separator|>
  3. [3]
    Transcript of Media Briefing by Official Spokesperson (January 14 ...
    Jan 15, 2016 · We also note that the Government of Pakistan is considering to send a Special Investigation Team to investigate the Pathankot terrorist attack.
  4. [4]
    QUESTION NO.614 INVESTIGATION INTO PATHANKOT ATTACK
    Apr 27, 2016 · ... perpetrators of Pathankot attack; and (e) the present status of bilateral talks between India and Pakistan? ANSWER THE MINISTER OF STATE IN ...
  5. [5]
    https://mea.gov.in/rajya-sabha.htm?dtl/26451/Q_NO818_TALKS_WITH_PAKISTAN_DESPITE_TENSION
  6. [6]
    https://mea.gov.in/rajya-sabha.htm?dtl/26511/QUESTION%2BNO1463%2BPAKISTAN%2BINVESTIGATING%2BPATHANKOT%2BTERRORIST%2BATTACK
  7. [7]
    Hostile Neighbors - CIRSD
    Notwithstanding ties of history, culture, ethnicity, and language, Pakistan and India remain hostile neighbors divided by the impact of the British Indian ...
  8. [8]
    Not War, Not Peace: Motivating Pakistan to Prevent Cross-Border ...
    Aug 25, 2016 · What can India do to motivate Pakistan to do more to prevent such attacks? In the nuclear times that we live in, where a military counter-attack ...
  9. [9]
    Pakistan's cross-border terrorism - The Pathankot attack
    Jun 4, 2021 · Abstract. At their latest summit in June 2016, the European and Indian authorities identified terrorism as one of the major areas of common ...
  10. [10]
    National Counterterrorism Center | Terrorist Groups - DNI.gov
    Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), meaning Army of Mohammad, is a Pakistan-based Sunni terrorist group that seeks to establish Pakistani sovereignty over Kashmir.Missing: links | Show results with:links<|separator|>
  11. [11]
    Profile: What is Jaish-e-Muhammad? | News - Al Jazeera
    May 1, 2019 · Pakistan-based armed group headed by Masood Azhar has been implicated in a series of suicide attacks in Kashmir.
  12. [12]
    Pakistan and Jaish-e-Mohammad: An unholy alliance - Lowy Institute
    Jul 7, 2017 · The resurgence of Jaish-e-Mohammed is dangerous for India. Only time will tell whether it is also a bad omen for Pakistan.
  13. [13]
    Climbing the Escalation Ladder: India and the Balakot Crisis
    Oct 2, 2019 · ... attacks on an airbase in Pathankot and an army base in Uri in 2016. ... India in the event of a Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack. For ...
  14. [14]
    What Washington Should Do to Help India–Pakistan Ties
    Jan 7, 2016 · On January 2, eight days after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a surprise Christmas Day stop in Lahore to visit with Prime Minister ...
  15. [15]
    Pathankot attack: India-Pakistan peace talks derailed? - BBC News
    Jan 7, 2016 · This is an unusual, if welcome, level of cordiality in Indo-Pakistan relations in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack. But there may yet ...
  16. [16]
    Pathankot: Kashmir-based militant coalition claims attack - BBC News
    Jan 4, 2016 · A Kashmir-based militant coalition, the United Jihad Council, says it carried out the deadly attack on an Indian air force base.
  17. [17]
    Terrorist Attack at AIR Force Station Pathankot - PIB
    Government of India Ministry of Defence 06-January-2016 20:32 IST. Terrorist Attack at AIR Force Station Pathankot. On receipt of intelligence inputs of a ...Missing: warnings | Show results with:warnings
  18. [18]
    Missed Clues Before Pathankot Air Base Was Attacked - NDTV
    Jan 5, 2016 · His colleagues' slowness to react was one of several security lapses in the build-up to the pre-dawn attack by terrorists suspected to belong to ...
  19. [19]
    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/pathankot-attack-terrorists-were-at-base-ahead-of-intelligence-alert/articleshow/50460356.cms
  20. [20]
    IAF inquiry into Pathankot attack finds serious lapses - The Hindu
    Jun 20, 2017 · A Court of Inquiry (CoI) by the Indian Air Force (IAF) into the terror attack on the Pathankot Air Force Station last year has found serious lapses in the air ...
  21. [21]
    Terrorist Attack at Air Force Station Pathankot - PIB
    Jan 2, 2016 · Terrorist Attack at Air Force Station Pathankot. Intelligence inputs had been available of a likely attempt by terrorists to infiltrate into ...
  22. [22]
    Intelligence lessons from Pathankot | Lowy Institute
    Jan 13, 2016 · At the dawn of the New Year, India suffered yet another surprise attack. Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Muhammad terrorists had snuck across the border ...Missing: details | Show results with:details<|separator|>
  23. [23]
    Militants attack Pathankot air base, 7 dead - Reuters
    Jan 2, 2016 · Militants launched a deadly attack on an Indian Air Force base near the Pakistan border on Saturday, exchanging fire with Indian forces who, ...
  24. [24]
    Punjab attack threatens India-Pakistan peace progress - Al Jazeera
    Jan 2, 2016 · Four attackers and three Indian soldiers killed in pre-dawn attack on an Indian air force base.Missing: initial | Show results with:initial
  25. [25]
    Punjab Timeline: 2016 - South Asia Terrorism Portal
    In 17 attacks that year, more than 170 people were killed and more than 350 injured. Punjab Police were aware about the possibility of a terror attack around ...
  26. [26]
    5 terrorists, 3 jawans killed in gunbattle at Air Force base in Punjab
    Jan 2, 2016 · In a pre-dawn attack, a group of heavily-armed terrorists, suspected to belong to Jaish-e-Mohammed outfit, struck at the Air Force base, ...
  27. [27]
    Why India's response to Pathankot attack was 'a debacle' - BBC News
    Jan 6, 2016 · It took Indian authorities four days to put down a deadly attack on the Pathankot air force base near the Pakistani border which killed seven Indian soldiers ...
  28. [28]
    Pathankot attack: 'All terrorists dead' - The Hindu
    Jan 3, 2016 · ... militant conglomerate, has claimed responsibility for the Pathankot attack. UJC is a conglomerate of around 13 militant outfits, including ...
  29. [29]
    Heavy gunfire as Indian airbase siege enters third day - Al Jazeera
    Jan 4, 2016 · Indian officials vow to kill remaining gunmen, following attack on Pathankot base near the border with Pakistan.
  30. [30]
    India admits security gaps in deadly air base attack - Al Jazeera
    Jan 5, 2016 · PM Modi calls for “firm and immediate action” against those responsible for attack blamed on Pakistani assailants.Missing: warnings | Show results with:warnings
  31. [31]
    All that went wrong with the Pathankot Operation
    Jan 7, 2016 · ... neutralizing six terrorists. Both the investigations ... operations and not meant to provide a protective shield against a terror attack.
  32. [32]
    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/pathankot-strike-surgical-operations-helped-contain-terrorists/articleshow/50466732.cms
  33. [33]
    The Sophisticated Weapons NSG Commandoes Used To Neutralise ...
    Jan 5, 2016 · They said the 'buster' tools, as they are called, were also used during the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks when the NSG used them to blow off ...Missing: neutralization | Show results with:neutralization
  34. [34]
    Death Toll Rises as India Works to Secure Air Force Base - NBC News
    Jan 3, 2016 · Pathankot Attack: Death Toll Rises as India Works to Secure Air Force Base ... 2016, during an ongoing attack on the base by suspected militants.
  35. [35]
    [PDF] LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO.*62 TO BE ANSWERED ON ...
    (a) the details of terrorist attacks including Pathankot air-base attack reported during the years 2015 and 2016, the number of civilian/security.
  36. [36]
    Compensation to civilians killed/injured in the Pathankot - PIB
    Mar 2, 2016 · ... injured in the incident of terror attack in Pathankot Airbase. As per the 'Central Scheme for Assistance to Civilian Victims of Terrorist ...
  37. [37]
    Indian air force base attack enters third day despite claim all ...
    Jan 5, 2016 · Indian air force base attack enters third day despite claim all militants were dead ... “A total of six terrorists have been killed, but every ...
  38. [38]
    NIA asks Pakistan to probe Pathankot attack origins within its borders
    Mar 3, 2016 · NIA asks Pakistan to probe Pathankot attack origins within its borders ... Pakistani brand 'Sardar', and their weapons/ammunition along ...
  39. [39]
    National Investigation Agency to produce arms seized before court
    Jul 25, 2017 · The arms and ammunition recovered during the Pathankot terror attack on January 2 last year would be produced by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) before ...
  40. [40]
    The blunders of Pathankot - India Today
    Jan 6, 2016 · The six fidayeen terrorists who struck at the airbase in Pathankot on January 2 ... Pathankot attack. Photo: PTI. Asit Jolly.
  41. [41]
    Body tissues of Pathankot attack terrorists preserved, weapons seized
    Jan 8, 2016 · The National Investigation Agency (NIA), probing the Pathankot air base terrorist attack, has preserved body tissues of the slain terrorists ...
  42. [42]
    Pathankot attack: DNA tests do not confirm claim of two more terrorists
    May 19, 2016 · The NIA remains skeptical that six terrorists were involved in the attack, and has sought information from Pakistan only on the four identified ...
  43. [43]
    Pathankot attack probe: India seeks FBI's help to track cyber footprints
    Apr 7, 2016 · ... Investigation (FBI), to probe the Pathankot airbase attack. According to Indian news channel CNN-IBN, official sources say help has been ...
  44. [44]
    Pathankot attack: NIA to submit report with fresh evidence from US of ...
    Aug 29, 2016 · Pathankot attack: NIA to submit report with fresh evidence from US of Pakistan's involvement. Officials said the agency is working on a detailed ...<|separator|>
  45. [45]
    [PDF] NIA.pdf
    Dec 19, 2016 · ... Pathankot terror attack case against four accused persons namely ... into the territory of India and to commit terrorist attack and wage war ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  46. [46]
    Masood Azhar, brother named in Pathankot attack chargesheet
    Dec 20, 2016 · The NIA on Monday filed a chargesheet against Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Maulana Masood Azhar, his brother and two others for hatching the ...Missing: sheet | Show results with:sheet<|control11|><|separator|>
  47. [47]
    Pathankot attack probe: Witnesses not produced before JIT, says ...
    Apr 8, 2016 · ... evidence regarding the incident. The NIA team probing the airbase attack supplied JIT with evidence that included made in Pakistan goods ...
  48. [48]
    Pak backtracked after seeing NIA evidence on Pathankot: Source
    Apr 8, 2016 · Pakistan has backtracked from its promise to allow a team of Indian investigators to visit there to probe the Pathankot terror attack case ...
  49. [49]
    Info from Pakistan helped NIA identify Pathankot attackers - The Hindu
    Apr 8, 2016 · According to the Terms of Reference for the recent visit of the JIT, it was to interview key witnesses and victims of Pathankot terror attack ...Missing: weapons | Show results with:weapons
  50. [50]
    NIA to seek Pakistan help in cracking Pathankot terror attack case
    Jan 5, 2016 · New Delhi: The NIA will seek help of Pakistan in solving the Pathankot terror attack case once the identity of people contacted by the ...
  51. [51]
    NIA Files Pathankot Charge Sheet, Names JeM Chief Masood Azhar
    Dec 19, 2016 · The charge sheet will likely to be used by India in advocating its case for imposing sanctions against Azhar under the UN anti-terror law, ...
  52. [52]
    JIT's visit to India - Ministry of Foreign Affairs
    ... 2016 for investigating the allegations regarding the attack on Pathankot Airbase, India. ... The JIT briefed the NIA on progress of investigations in Pakistan.
  53. [53]
    Pathankot attack: Pakistan JIT records statements of witnesses
    Mar 31, 2016 · Nasir was claimed to have spoken to his mother during the attack. The NIA sought access to Azhar and Rauf and told the visiting team that ...
  54. [54]
    Pak. team visits Pathankot airbase - The Hindu
    Mar 29, 2016 · ... attack. He said the field visit added further weight to India's claims. The five-member JIT was put in bullet-proof SUVs and were given a ...Missing: forensic weapons GPS<|control11|><|separator|>
  55. [55]
    Pakistan officials have assured full cooperation in Pathankot probe ...
    Apr 1, 2016 · India News: NEW DELHI: After a five-day investigation in India by five-member Pakistani Joint Investigation Team on Pathankot IAF base attack,
  56. [56]
    Pakistan JIT claims Pathankot attack staged, say reports - Mint
    Apr 5, 2016 · A Pakistani news report says the JIT concluded that the Pathankot attack looked like another false flag operation fully facilitated by the Indian army.Missing: findings | Show results with:findings
  57. [57]
    Pathankot attack, 'a-three day drama' staged by Indians to malign ...
    Apr 5, 2016 · The Pakistan Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the deadly Pathankot terror attack has concluded that India had prior information about ...
  58. [58]
    India 'failed' to provide evidence to Pak JIT on Pathankot attack
    Apr 3, 2016 · The Pakistani Joint Investigation Team (JIT) probing the Pathankot attack claimed that Indian authorities “failed” to provide evidence to prove that Pakistan- ...Missing: findings | Show results with:findings
  59. [59]
    Record of the Press Briefing by Spokesperson on 03 March 2016
    Mar 3, 2016 · Pakistan took all necessary measures on the basis of preliminary information provided by India regarding Pathankot terrorist attack. JIT has ...
  60. [60]
    https://www.dawn.com/news/1248403
  61. [61]
    [PDF] government of india - Ministry of Home Affairs
    Feb 24, 2016 · (a) & (b):. There was specific intelligence with regard to pathankot terror attack. In addition, general intelligence inputs about cross ...
  62. [62]
    IAF probe reveals security lapses, Pathankot Airbase ex-commander ...
    Jun 20, 2017 · ... failure of command and control as well as several security lapses during the attack. Key Highlights. An IAF inquiry allegedly indicted Air ...
  63. [63]
    Parliamentary panel blames intelligence failure for terror attacks on ...
    Apr 13, 2017 · On a query from the Committee as to why no post facto analysis of intelligence failure was done after Pathankot attack and why the Government ...<|separator|>
  64. [64]
    Pak ignored India's dossiers on terror - Hindustan Times
    Apr 25, 2025 · India has sent nearly 20 judicial requests and evidence to Pakistan regarding terrorism, but Islamabad has consistently ignored the information.
  65. [65]
    Blame Pakistani spy service for attack on Indian air force base
    Jan 5, 2016 · On Sunday, the Indian Consulate in Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan was also attacked by gunmen. Both attacks are the work of the ...Missing: Mohammed | Show results with:Mohammed
  66. [66]
    ISI, not Pak. Army trains LeT, Jaish: Musharraf - The Hindu
    Feb 12, 2016 · Pakistan's former military ruler Pervez Musharraf on Thursday said ISI trains LeT and Jaish militants and terror attacks in India will not ...
  67. [67]
    The Terrorist Who Got Away - The New York Times
    Mar 21, 2020 · Despite the deadly attack in Pulwama, and the other attacks for which Jaish claims responsibility, Pakistan has refused to prosecute Azhar ...<|separator|>
  68. [68]
    Why India and Pakistan Agreed to Delay Scheduled Talks
    Jan 15, 2016 · India and Pakistan have mutually decided to postpone their foreign secretary-level talks, which were originally scheduled for January 15.
  69. [69]
    How Prime Minister Modi Can Sustain India's Pakistan Dialogue
    Feb 12, 2016 · Yet, a terrorist attack in January 2016 on an Indian air base in the border state of Punjab underlined the enduring fragility of the ...Missing: impact | Show results with:impact
  70. [70]
    India Pakistan officials meet in New Delhi – DW – 04/26/2016
    Apr 26, 2016 · The two countries suspended talks between their foreign secretaries earlier this year after a terror attack on India's Pathankot airbase - ...
  71. [71]
    Talks with Pak not suspended: India - The Tribune
    Apr 23, 2016 · Responding to a question on the issue, External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Vikas Swarup said that after the Pathankot attack, investigation ...
  72. [72]
    Terror and Escalation: India's Lessons from Pathankot to Pulwama
    May 8, 2025 · India's response to terror has evolved and emerged out of the shadows of its past attacks. Examining Pathankot, Uri, and Pulwama provides ...
  73. [73]
    Telephone Call from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan to ...
    Jan 5, 2016 · ... attack on the Pathankot airbase. Prime Minister Modi strongly emphasized the need for Pakistan to take firm and immediate action against the ...
  74. [74]
    Pathankot attack: India PM Modi urges Pakistan action - BBC News
    Jan 5, 2016 · Mr Modi urged an "immediate" response to the Pathankot base attack in Punjab after his counterpart Nawaz Sharif telephoned him to discuss the ...
  75. [75]
    Pathankot attack: Indian PM urges Pakistan to invesitgate | CNN
    Jan 5, 2016 · Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has urged his Pakistani counterpart to investigate the deadly attack by militants on the Pathankot airbase in India.
  76. [76]
    [PDF] CRISIS MANAGEMENT IN NUCLEAR SOUTH ASIA - Stimson Center
    During the January 2016 Pathankot incident, six militants killed seven Indian soldiers during an attack on the Indian Air Force base in Pathankot. In response.
  77. [77]
    India is Failing to Learn from Terrorist Attacks | Wilson Center
    Jan 12, 2016 · ... terrorists stormed India's Pathankot Air Force Base, located in the ... terror in India and the likelihood of additional attacks in 2016.Missing: domestic reforms
  78. [78]
    https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/26268/Statement_on_Pakistan_Official_Spokespersons_Media_briefing_on_14th_January
  79. [79]
    Concrete evidence needed from India - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
    ISLAMABAD: Pakistan needs concrete evidence from India for acting against the elements it suspects of being involved in the terrorist strike at Pathankot ...
  80. [80]
    https://www.dawn.com/news/1232709
  81. [81]
    PM chairs high-level meeting to discuss national, regional security
    Jan 7, 2016 · Indian media claimed all six attackers had sneaked in from across the border and were members of the banned Jaish-e-Muhammad militant group; ...Missing: denial | Show results with:denial
  82. [82]
    China: Pathankot attacks aimed at disrupting India-Pakistan ties
    Jan 4, 2016 · China on Monday condemned the armed attack on the Pathankot air base, and hoped that it will fail in its objective of disrupting the new ...Missing: statement | Show results with:statement
  83. [83]
    Statement on the attack at the Indian Air Force Base in Pathankot
    Sri Lanka strongly condemns the terrorist attack on the Indian Air Force base in Pathankot. The Government and people of Sri Lanka extend condolences to the ...
  84. [84]
    Joint Statement on U.S.-India Counter Terrorism Joint Working ...
    ... Pathankot. The U.S. reiterated its support for the people and government of India in the fight against terrorism. There was a joint commitment to strengthen ...<|separator|>
  85. [85]
    [PDF] India statement -- International Terrorism -- Sixth Committee (Legal)
    terror attacks, the 2016 Pathankot air base attack and the 2019 suicide bombing of our policemen at Pulwama are imprinted strongly in every Indian's living ...