Decoding the patriarchal symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’

India attacked Pakistan on Wednesday, targeting several sites past midnight killing 26 and injuring almost 46 people, as reported by Pakistani sources. The midnight operation was named Operation Sindoor by India, claiming that the naming comes from widowed women of Pahalgam incident and is intended to take vengeance on their behalf.

The codename prescribed to a military operation significantly indicates the underlying national narratives and social inclination. The case of Operation Sindoor, which is purportedly an Indian military operation explains this concept.

The vermilion powder that Hindu women have traditionally used to symbolise marriage, known as sindoor, is a powerful symbol. Using this term for a military operation is a symbolic gesture that hints at a combination of nationalism, patriarchal beliefs, and objectification of an enemy territory as something to be claimed like a bride.

25 Indian drones shot down, at least one dead: ISPR

The strategy of naming military operations is a war of narrative and perception building. Since 1989, US has been codenaming its operations in order to highlight the humanitarian, justice and peace factors in the operations.

Some examples are ‘Operation Just Cause’ in the invasion of Panama, ‘Operation Provide Comfort’ in Turkey and ‘Operation Uphold Democracy’ in Haiti.

All these names give a positive note to the operations and provide for the desired domestic and international narrative to benefit the country launching the operation. Professor Ray Eldon Hiebert highlights the importance of word choice and media presence for governments engaged in war, as he says, “To win a war today, government not only has to win on the battlefield, it must also win the minds of its public.”

The Indian perspective regarding Operation Sindoor is a symbolic revenge associated with military masculinity. It claims that the operation is a retaliatory action, which remains unfounded, which is a show of manly strength when national honour is thought to have been betrayed. Cynthia Enloe, a feminist scholar, contends that militarization is never gender-neutral since it depends on certain notions of masculinity. Moreover, the symbolism behind naming of the operation represents how intricately interlinked Hindu nationalism is with patriarchy and male dominance.

This view is expressed by V. Geetha, an Indian feminist activist who writes on caste and gender, when she says that women are often used as objects to be protected or as mothers who send their sons to protect them. This notion puts women in a passive position and their symbols, like the widows of men in the Pahalgam incident, are used for a narrative propagated by the men in power.

Another perspective to the codename is feminization of land and territory.

Nations and territories are commonly personified as women across cultures and histories – a notion so deeply embedded that it is often overlooked. By tying political concepts like borders and sovereignty, to abstract and emotional terms such as honor, nationalist ideologies are propagated. The portrayal of state as a masculine proprietor or protector and the land as a feminised object to be defended, claimed, or abused, creates a metaphorical connotation.

This makes geopolitical warfare a highly gendered act, involving control over the feminised ‘other’ as well as sovereignty. In this patriarchal claim of possession, Operation Sindoor implies the Indian state is symbolically ‘marking territory’ in Pakistan.

In addition to being offensive, marking land symbolically in the same way that one would mark a woman serves as a reminder that both women and the land are all too frequently viewed as property in nationalist endeavours.

“Nationalism has typically sprung from masculinised memory, masculinised humiliation, and masculinised hope,” as feminist scholar Cynthia Enloe so eloquently stated. This phrase reverberates strongly in the wake of Operation Sindoor, which used both military force and symbolic possession and was played out on a stage still influenced by patriarchal vision.

Conflicts today are nevertheless influenced by this history of gendered violence. Operation Sindoor capitalises on this custom by using marriage symbolism that taps into public emotions. It presents geopolitical aggression as an act of masculine assertion over a feminised, dishonoured adversary.

Some critics referred to the term as “aptly chosen”, associating it with the restoration of patriarchal order and marital symbolism by avenging Hindu males who were killed before their brides. Some users called it ‘marking of territory by India’ through putting sindoor. Few criticized the notion as deeply patriarchal and promoting rape-culture and honor-killings.

Vaishna Roy, editor of Frontline, claimed that the term “reeks of patriarchy, ownership of women… and other Hindutva obsessions”, underscoring the negative ideology that emerged. Some even presented the official media briefing, which was led by two female officers, as a “powerful message of gender equality”.

Although it may appear progressive, this could also be interpreted as appropriating women’s presence to justify a patriarchally charged operation while subsiding more deeper criticism.

It calls into question how states truly view women. Ironically, women’s symbolism justifies military operations while women’s material needs – particularly those impacted by conflict – are not sufficiently met. Does this kind of symbolism actually result in support for women’s safety, empowerment, or rights?

The symbolic use of women frequently serves narratives rather than the interests of women, as many feminist critiques indicate. It is a strategy that uses female symbols for political purposes without making any effort to address gender inequity. While governments fail to uproot patriarchal structures, symbolic gestures can mask a lack of progress by giving the impression that the state is supporting women.

This viewpoint has the potential to hide the complexity of international relations and desensitize viewers to the human cost of conflict. One can gain a better understanding of how nationalist discourses use gender to frame conflicts by critically analyzing the gendered language surrounding Operation Sindoor. This awareness is crucial in challenging narratives that dehumanize and objectify nations and peoples, and in promoting a more nuanced and equitable discourse on international affairs.

The article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Recorder or its owners