The Indian government’s military response to the Pahalgam terror attack which killed 26 civilians in Indian occupied Kashmir was disguised as a ‘military retaliation’ – a war for peace. In the early hours of May 7, 2025, the Indian army launched Operation Sindoor in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, hitting nine terrorist infrastructure and stressing that the actions were “measured, non-escalatory, proportionate, and responsible”. However, these military strikes have so far resulted in the deaths of at least 40 civilians on both sides of the border, a fact largely obscured in mainstream Indian media coverage.
In her book The Power, Naomi Alderman writes, “The truth has always been a more complex commodity than the market can easily package and sell.” What appears on the surface as a strike against terrorism is a deeply politicised operation that exploits gendered symbols and emotions. The state’s deployment of feminist liberal language—such as positioning women in military leadership and politicising grief to justify war — reframes state violence as a moral necessity. Rather than challenging patriarchal power, this misappropriation of feminism to soften, justify, and aestheticise war ultimately reinforces sexist and exclusionary structures of power which feminists worldwide are trying to dismantle.
Victimising women in Indian media
The government of India named this military strike as ‘Operation Sindoor’ – a deliberate strategy to reduce women’s identities to their marital status. The symbols sindoor (vermilion powder applied by a married woman’s hair parting) and mangalsutra (a sacred neck jewellery worn by married women) are deeply ingrained in the traditional representation of a Hindu woman and her marital status. In the days following the terrorist attack, a Ghibli style image of one of the victims, Himanshi Narwal wearing a bridal attire sitting beside her husband’s body was shared widely on the internet to garner widespread support in the country where the husband is seen as woman’s guardian and source of protection.
A week after her husband’s death, Himanshi urged people to not spread communal hatred against Muslims and Kashmiris adding, “Of course, we want justice. The people who have wronged him should be punished.” Within hours of her peace appeal, she was viciously trolled with posts filled with hate speech, communal slurs, and questioning her character. Despite her constant appeal for peace, unity and restraint, the government blatantly mobilised her image and grief, erasing her agency and casting her as a symbol whose honour must be defended through war and not citizen with a political voice.
The framing of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the protector of the Sindoor of a Hindu woman (or an India woman) perpetuates the patriarchal notions of the state. This narrative of avenging the widow’s pain was used to morally justify state violence which reinforced the idea that protecting a woman’s marital sanctity is protecting the nation itself.
Femonationalism and weaponising gender
Two women officers, Colonel Sofiya Qureshi of the Indian Army and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh of the Air Force gave a press conference in the aftermath of the operation. The Indian news media outlets and liberal feminists celebrated this achievement of women’s leadership in the operation as a message to the world on how progressive the country is. However, this strategic display of women in leadership roles in military action exemplifies a form of Femonationalism – exploitation of feminist ideals to advance nationalist and militaristic agendas.
Governments worldwide are integrating women into violent security apparatuses purportedly as a sign of progress and equality and weaponising gender to transform their violent actions into a moral and progressive act. This lens suggests the nation’s military strength is inherently justified in killing civilians and causing destruction because it now includes women — who are culturally positioned as caring, empathetic figures. The state uses these portrayals of women to reduce complex realities into patriotic stories that silence alternative voices, especially those questioning war, grief, and the fundamental patriarchal structure of the military where women’s participation in war is seen as evidence of moral legitimacy.
Given that the Pahalgam terrorist attack intended to polarise Indian society by killing Hindu men, the presence of a Muslim woman, Colonel Sophia Qureshi giving the press conference is a carefully chosen measure by the government to present itself as inclusive and counter accusations of perpetuating anti-Muslim sentiment. Her presence allowed the government to project an image of secular inclusivity and ignore the broader issues of violence, militarisation, and oppression that women, especially Muslim women, continue to face under the current BJP regime. This selective use of intersectional feminism reflects a more insidious form of feminist manipulation, where women’s identities are co-opted not to challenge or change oppressive structures but to reinforce them, using gender as a tool for state-sanctioned violence.
Power corrupts, but is that all?
I come back to the Power by Naomi Alderman where she says, “Power has her ways. She acts on people, and people act on her.” This suggests that when women are given power, they replicate the same structures of dominance and violence as a male dominated society. It is a feminist warning: that power corrupts not because of who holds it, but because of the nature of power itself. While this framing is compelling, it risks flattening the political landscape by suggesting that the outcome of power is always the same—regardless of the identity, ideology, or context of the person holding it. When applied to real-world politics where women’s leadership is still minimal, and their participation is often symbolic, co-opted, or highly constrained, this is a problematic view.
The state’s use of women on camera to give a press conference justifying the military strike doesn’t prove that women are as warlike as men — it proves that patriarchal regimes are willing to manipulate feminist optics to legitimise their agendas. People looking at their television celebrating women giving details on the operation forget that these women are operating within a system designed and dominated by masculine norms of nationalism, violence, and control. Their visibility does not reflect female empowerment but the state’s strategic use of gender as a softening agent for militarism.
Indian government’s co-optation of feminism to serve its military agenda defies feminism at its core – politics of equality, justice, and the dismantling of all forms of violence and oppression. This appropriation of feminist politics risks derailing progressive policies by reinforcing the instrumentalisation of women within a patriarchal society. When feminist language is used to legitimise militarism, it becomes a tool of domination rather than liberation.
This opinion blog is authored by Jigyasa Agarwal in her capacity as an IDS alum. Jigyasa studied MA Governance, Development and Public Policy at IDS in 2022-2023.
