The morning of May 7 saw Indian nationalism being celebrated across Whatsapp groups, with details of how the heinous Pahalgam attack had been ‘avenged’.
Every word carries meaning and political weight, and the context in which it is used, matters.
The morning of May 7 saw Indian nationalism being celebrated across Whatsapp groups, with details of how the heinous Pahalgam attack had been ‘avenged’.
The Indian military carried out Operation Sindoor, targeting what they call ‘terrorist infrastructure’ in Pakistan and PoK. The name of the Operation had been given apparently by Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself.
The name 'Operation Sindoor' reeks of patriarchy and everything wrong with the relationship that India and its patriarchal males have with women. The idea of sindoor (while symbolic of Himanshi Narwal who has now been made the poster woman of the worst attacks on civilians since 2008 in India) emerging from the image from Baisaran meadow that shook us all, reduces women's identity to the relationship they have with the men in their lives, beyond the identities they have themselves.
The concept of the operation being required to avenge an attack on the idea of the motherland, to avenge an atrocity perpetrated on a woman by the killing of her husband, reduces the standing of women to being just victims.
Victims who need saviours to avenge them and fight for them. It sets back the fight that feminists have taken on for decades of identity, movement, language, rights, and relegates women and identities back to only being in the context of men.
It also contextualises the country in the same patriarchal definition of gender--in this case, the ‘bechaari mother’ who needs revenge. The motherland for whom justice will be sought.
The very idea of sindoor--a marker of marriage--a visible sign of ‘belonging’ in the traditional Hindu marriage is a patriarchal concept. No visible markers are worn by men to indicate being married, however, these overt markers are expected to be celebrated and venerated by women.
The absence of which for years has been historically associated with being widowed, which also signifies a certain way of life, sans colour and joy because those worldly pleasures were supposed to be sacrificed by women at the time of their husbands’ deaths.
Why must India in 2025, in a military operation, evoke a name with such heavy patriarchal imagery in its presence and absence? With this, there is also the communal imagery it evokes. Sindoor wearing is very clearly a practice that belongs only to Hinduism.
The government, by choosing this name, has continued its legacy of using language that enables it to thrive on divisive politics. ‘Operation Sindoor’ does not avenge citizens of India for an attack on Indians at Pahalgam. It avenges Hindus for attacks on Hindus in Pahalgam. There is a dramatic difference between the two messages.
The idea of sindoor is not really relevant in many Indian states. However, it is most relevant in the states most significant to the BJP--the Hindi speaking belt--their primary vote bank. With the Bihar elections approaching, is it any wonder that the name is designed to tick the boxes of the Hindu vote bank, the Hindi speaking belt and patriarchal acceptance?
To silence the liberals, the briefing about the Operation saw two women officers, one of them being a Muslim. The optics around the operation have been carefully planned, with mindful appropriations; however, at the heart of it, patriarchy shines through.
In addition to this is the continuing jingoism and toxic masculinity now parading in digital spaces--also a deep reflection of patriarchy. As Indo-Pak tensions threaten to escalate, we must remember the role of language, and the role we all play in what we read, share, feel and say.
Every word carries meaning, political weight and its own reality--and the context in which it is used, matters.
(Views expressed are personal)