I think that was attempted, but only partially achieved. And definitely while some new precedence has been set, IMO it failed to achieve the desired level. The way I see it, the strike was perhaps worth the internal political points, but failed to exact any real cost out of Pakistan. There was an idea floating about in previous years that India had built a huge economic, diplomatic, military edge against us, and that the latter was not just scale, but also in tech. Hence surgical strike, punitive actions against the state of Pakistan could be taken unilaterally at a whim. In the same way Israel might for example strike some place in Syria whenever it wishes. This was a delusion that was going to face reality one day or another.
Instead what we had was a raid that arguably didn't achieve the desired results. And a follow up counter by Pakistan that not only restored parity, in my view it also dispelled any notions of a huge Indian edge, while also allowing Pakistan a great political and propaganda victory at Indian expense. I don't think anyone in India expected that sort of retaliation from us. I'm not boasting here, it's that we had no choice, and we could not afford to allow a new precedence to be set.
In fact, so much so is this the case, the days after 27th Feb, nobody in Pakistan was worried that this is now the new normal or that all future attacks in India will cause them to lash out at us, instead we were worried by Indian motivation to settle the score given how badly last years event turned out.
As for whether indeed a new precedent has been set, we'll find out in coming years I imagine. Only three years had elapsed between the last two strikes.
Also, I just want to add one comment that I think is pertinent. I think Indian surgical strike policy has far less to do with the military disparity or any perceived ascendancy in capabilities, if the perception was there before 27th Feb, I don't think it's there any more. Instead I think the main cause of this policy is internal Indian politics, power projection intended to placate voters. From your perspective, the positive here is that your government put their interests first and stood up to us with more than just words. This has serious signalling effects that need to be acknowledged, but the utility beyond that is debatable.