Should India retaliate against PAK?

“People should either be caressed or crushed. If you do them minor damage they will get their revenge; but if you cripple them there is nothing they can do. If you need to injure someone, do it in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance.”- Niccolo Machiavelli

Can we carry our retaliation thought against Pakistan after reading above statement, if our conscious mind thinks somehow the statement correct ?

We are demanding military action against Pakistan for the Uri attack . Terrorist attacks against Indian security forces in border areas used to be a thing of the '90s. Lately, they have returned: Pathankot earlier this year and Gurdaspur last year were two more such attacks.

Call it surgical strike or hot pursuit, any military action against Pakistan is a bad idea. It is unlikely to achieve the desired result of preventing future terrorist attacks. On the contrary, it could backfire.

I would like to categorize some point why shouldn't India think for war against Pakistan.

• Menace of War: India may mean a small strike, but there's no telling that Pakistan could escalate it. Between two nuclear armed neighbours, with one refusing to declare 'no first use', war is not an option.
• Uncertainty of success: Although our past statistic elaborate the 100% success rate,we had also more causality in third war agaiest Pakistan. The success of military conflict cannot be guaranteed. It might weaken India further and make it more vulnerable, if military action is unsuccessful.
• After 26/11, then prime minister Manmohan Singh had considered air strikes against Pakistan. But the air force chief had said India didn't have accurate digital data on terrorist camps in Pakistan, and the army chief had said the Indian Army was not prepared for a brief, surgical strike. Military experts say it would take years for India to develop strategic capabilities for targeted cross-border operations. Politically, military action that is seen as a failure would hurt the Modi government more than not doing anything.
• Intent of Pakistan: Kargil war was not a "misadventure", General Musharraf maintains that it achieved the goal ofinternationalizing the Kashmir issue. The terrorists who struck at Uri, and their masters, know very well that such an attack could provoke India into military retaliation. They would be happy if that is the case, as it would help bring greater attention to the Kashmir issue.
• Global adversity: The major power of UN wants India and Pakistan to hold talks,as they used to.But if India were to pursue military action, it would alarm the world for fear of nuclear war. In such case India have immense pressure to not go for war.Any cross-border military action, whether or not you call it war, needs global diplomatic support.Without it, India may face a major international crisis.(But i can't able to figure out why Pak never faced such kind of international crisis ) .
• Halting the Economy : War is always bad for the economy, for both sides. In this case, India has a lot more to lose. The Indian economy is way ahead of Pakistan, so the damage will be greater for India. The uncertainties of war drive away potential investors, cause inflation and shortages. In fact, votaries of strategic restraint argue that success is the best revenge: India's economic rise is the best answer to a Pakistan whose image is that of a terrorism-sponsoring state.