Sindoor, sexism and symbolism

Our world is not only unequal and unjust but also filled with ironies. One particular irony that has resurfaced recently is that militaries, despite their evolving policies and public relations campaigns, are still hypermasculine and, at times, envision thriving in hegemonic masculinity spaces.

In many parts of the world, women are now being "allowed" to serve in armed forces, to wear the same medals, and to march to the same beat. They are even being promoted. But women must not confuse these optics of token visibility with equality. The equality stance often turns out to be nothing more than a rehearsed political script. A woman might wear a uniform, but can she rewrite or even slightly edit the doctrine? Can she rename the war?

I find it ironic too that as an advocate of peace with dignity, I have to accept the idea of UN peacekeeping forces, where many enemy countries work together for global peace and better salaries. This piece is not about why peace does not make money in business studies or media headlines unless associated with economy and trade, nor about the billions that war does. It is, however, a painful nod to the fact that sexism is now an established constituency of war and conflicts.

As a student of peace advocacy and GBV dynamics, I had to study the anatomy and pathology of war with a feminist lens. There used to be a subtle, yet deeply rooted sexism it perpetuates. Now with changed times, it has become more obvious. So much so that our old enemy and neighbour could not resist naming its most recent aggression against us as 'Sindoor'. A lot has been written about it around the globe, and feminists did raise concerns about the war and rape jokes as well.

Operation Sindoor by India on May 7, 2025 was imposed on Pakistan. According to India, it was their military response to a terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025. The name, derived from sindoor, the red vermilion traditionally applied by Hindu married women in the parting of their hair, perhaps was thought to carry powerful emotional and gendered connotations.

Is it not ironic that women, the vast majority of whom are otherwise marginalised in their cultures and cults and also face structural patriarchy, suddenly become a vehicle for sending strategic messages? It is obvious that in a country where VAWG is too prevalent and where sindoor symbolises domestic holiness, the Indian military suddenly thought that naming a military operation after this intimate symbol is meticulous enough to send more than just a strategic message. Hence, "they" decided that women's honour should be and could be garrisoned not by agency, but by artillery.

And this may not be the first time militaries have commissioned femininity in the naming of conflict. A quick review of military history reveals at least five operations that have drawn upon women's names, symbols, or cultural metaphors. These include:

Operation Artemis (the EU's intervention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2003), invoking the Greek goddess of the hunt, moon, archery, childbirth, and chastity.

Operation Juno (Canadian D-Day landing in 1944). Juno was an ancient Roman goddess, the protector and special counsellor of the state, said to also watch over the women of Rome, named after the Roman goddess of state protection and marriage.

Operation Minerva (Italian military operation in East Timor), named after the Roman goddess of handicrafts, the professions, the arts, and later wisdom and strategic warfare.

Operation Rosario (Argentina's 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands). In Spanish, it is considered a unisex name, though often used for girls, derived from the "rosary", a string of beads used in Roman Catholic prayers.

And, Operation Iskra (Soviet military operation in 1943 during World War II), meaning "spark" in Russian, a feminine noun symbolising hope and ignition, also quoted as primarily a female name of Slavic origin that means spark.

Sexism has many masks. So here comes the Indianised militarised sexism, one that wears the mask of faith and cultural pride and emotional resonance but ensures to keep women at the margins of meaningful military discourse. Such symbols are invoked not to empower women, to include her choices or her intellect, but to display her as a showpiece, to represent her ceremonially, and ultimately to benefit a patriarchal narrative.

Naming a military operation after a woman or a feminine symbol often apparently exalts their image while absolutely ignoring their absence in decision-making, in peace dialogues, and in post-conflict phases. Women must remain vigilant. Women must advocate not just for women in barracks, but women at the war tables. Women must get a seat at the table where wars are named and negotiated. Currently, the popular mindset is misogynistic and glorifies sexism. It will take many centuries for any attitudinal shift or dismantling of the patriarchal consensus.

Till then the military operations would likely continue to be named matrimonial markers, and marketing by propagandists and frenzy media. In this bleak scenario, I see one silver lining, and that is the value system of Islam that clearly says to protect unarmed people and even trees in times of war. Thankfully, our proud forces do not romanticise any manipulative symbolism of feminism, and as professional, ethical armies do not target any innocent civilians, let alone innocent children and women.

I also want to quote these recent words of former Indian army chief General Manoj Naravane: "War is not romantic. It is not your Bollywood movie. It is a very serious business. Violence is not the answer." Look forward to the day when India finally internalises that war between two nuclear countries, as rightly framed by our DG ISPR, is "absurd, inconceivable, and sheer stupidity" and acknowledges that all people and countries are equal. It is only through empathetic conversations and sincere diplomacy that we can pave the way for a future where people-centric and gender-sensitive cooperation prevails over hostility.