Operation Sindoor: The Reality Behind the Political Posturing

On May 7, the Indian government fielded two women military officers to brief the press about the strikes carried out in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. One of them was Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, a Muslim officer. For the international media watching India, the government’s messaging was clear: unlike Pakistan, India is a secular democracy with a professional army. But within a week, this carefully crafted projection began to unravel. Madhya Pradesh minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kunwar Vijay Shah made crass and communal remarks, referring to Qureshi without naming her. He said, “Jinhone hamare betiyon ke sindoor uchala… humne unhi ki behen ko hamare jahaj mein bhej kar aise ki taisi karvai.” The ones who wiped off the sindoor of our sisters, Modi ji sent their own sister in our plane to teach them a lesson. Shah’s remarks drew outrage, criticism, and an FIR. His apology was revealing: “Sister Sofia has brought glory to India by rising above caste and religion,” he told The Indian Express. “She is more respected than our own sister.” This paternalistic response only highlighted the underlying issues. The paternalism isn’t limited to Shah. In his speech on May 12, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Operation Sindoor, code-named after the vermillion mark that is a symbol of marriage for Hindu women, represents the emotions of Indians. “I dedicate Operation Sindoor to every mother, sister, and daughter,” he said. Now every terrorist knows the consequences of “removing the sindoor from the foreheads of our mothers and daughters,” he added. In the ideological framework of the Hindu Right, only certain women are seen as worth protecting or celebrating: the behen who lost her sindoor and the behen who avenged it. Women who express opinions different from the establishment narrative are not valued. Online abuse against women is rampant, and this fortnight, the targets included the daughter of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and Himanshi Narwal, the widow of Naval officer Vinay Narwal, who was killed in the Pahalgam attack. War-mongers, disappointed at the announcement of a ceasefire, directed their ire at the foreign secretary by targeting his daughter Didon for writing an article in The Wire and providing legal assistance to Rohingya refugees in Myanmar. Himanshi Narwal, despite being a “sister who lost her sindoor,” was subjected to sexual trolling because she called for communal harmony and peace. The Haryana Women’s Commission has summoned Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad for a Facebook post pointing out the irony of Hindutva commentators praising Qureshi while Indian Muslims face mob lynchings, demolitions, and persecution for their religious identity. Two things are evident. First, the official silence on Misri and Narwal sends the message that the trolling and online abuse come with tacit approval. This covert sanction allows online mobs to police the narrative by viciously attacking detractors and critics. Second, it is clear that the ruling party invokes gender and women solely to further its narrative. Ideologically, Hindutva is intolerant of the religious pluralism that was displayed at the May 7 press conference. It was bound to come apart. Thirty years ago, scholar Amrita Basu had coined the term “feminism inverted” based on her research on women’s political activism in the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Basu contended that the BJP was accommodating of women and even tolerated a vocabulary of women’s empowerment as long as it served its “electorally driven communal strategy.” The events of the past two weeks have confirmed this.