A recent debate in India questions whether the naming of military operations reflects religious bias or cultural heritage. The controversy began after the naming of Operation Sindoor, a retaliatory action following a terrorist attack in Pahalgam that targeted married Hindu men, leaving widows behind. Critics, including Mani Shankar Aiyar, argued that using names like Sindoor signals a “saffronisation” or religious bias in the army. However, Brigadier Brijesh Pandey, a retired Indian Army officer with 35 years of service, says this interpretation is misleading and ignores the historical and cultural tradition of naming military operations.
Brigadier Pandey explains that military operation names are cultural symbols, not ideological statements. They often honor the victims, reflect the context of the mission, or serve as motivational tools for troops. The army has a long-standing tradition of drawing names from mythology, Sanskrit, geography, and abstract concepts. These practices are not linked to any political regime and have been consistent across Congress, BJP, and coalition governments. For instance, Operation Meghdoot (1984) was named after Kalidasa’s Sanskrit classic Meghaduta, reflecting the airlifting of troops to the Siachen Glacier. The name had cultural resonance, not religious intent.
Operation Sindoor’s name was chosen as a tribute to victims. In Indian culture, sindoor (vermilion) symbolizes the marital bond. The operation was aimed at punishing the perpetrators of a crime targeting married Hindu men and supporting the widows they left behind. It was not a religious decree but a culturally meaningful choice. Similarly, defense officials have stated that there is no fixed written policy on naming operations. Names are pragmatic, contextual, and often originate at junior levels before approval. They are meant to evoke resolve, morale, and symbolism rather than ideology.
Looking at past military operations demonstrates that naming operations after cultural or mythological references is a long-standing practice, not a new phenomenon. Before 2014, India named operations like Operation Trident (1971), Operation Shakti (1998), and Exercise Ashvamedha (2007). Operation Trident, a naval strike on Karachi, drew its name from Lord Shiva’s weapon, the Trishul. Operation Shakti, India’s nuclear test in 1998, reflected the concept of divine power in Hindu philosophy. Exercise Ashvamedha, inspired by an ancient horse sacrifice ritual, symbolized strategic strength and cultural heritage. None of these operations were criticized for religious bias at the time, yet they drew from Hindu mythology or Sanskrit terminology.
Even post-2014, operations and exercises continued to reflect cultural or motivational elements rather than religious ideology. Examples include Operation Maitri (2015), meaning friendship, and Exercise Shatrujeet (2016), meaning enemy conqueror. The Indian Armed Forces remain a plural institution, including regiments based on regional or community identity—Sikh Regiment, Rajputana Rifles, Maratha Light Infantry, Punjab Regiment, Assam Regiment, Madras Regiment, and Gorkha Regiment. These units preserve regional, caste, and faith-based traditions while serving a unified national purpose. No evidence suggests that naming conventions have become a tool for religious indoctrination.
Critics who label these operation names as “saffronisation” often use selective examples, ignoring decades of continuity. Disinformation, amplification of selective cases, and deliberate attempts to erode trust in the armed forces are common tactics in such narratives. Similar campaigns questioned the credibility of the 2016 Surgical Strikes and 2019 Balakot airstrikes, where rumors and insinuation were used to create doubt despite strong evidence.
ALSO READ: Uttarakhand landslide buries family, heroic mother shields children
ALSO READ: Early signs of PCOS in teenage girls: What parents should watch for
Brigadier Pandey argues that India, as a majority-Hindu nation, naturally reflects its civilizational heritage in naming operations, particularly when a mission directly addresses crimes against the community. However, the naming is symbolic, not exclusive or discriminatory. The army’s diverse structure, historical continuity, and inclusive recruitment practices provide evidence of its secular and plural nature. If the armed forces were being “saffronised,” there would be official directives, uniform recruitment criteria favoring a particular religion, and exclusion of non-Hindus from key positions. None of this exists.
In conclusion, Indian military operations reflect heritage, culture, and ethos rather than ideology. Operation names honor victims, convey symbolic messages, and boost morale. Historical continuity shows that cultural references in operation names are standard practice and not a political or religious agenda. Selective criticism of Operation Sindoor ignores decades of tradition and misrepresents the army’s intentions. The armed forces continue to be a secular, plural, and professional institution, committed to protecting the nation while drawing inspiration from India’s rich cultural heritage.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash