Selective amnesia and deliberate attempt to communalise the army on naming of operation Sindoor is gross and unacceptable.
Brig Brijesh Pandey
Frontline column “Hindu Names for Military Operations: Treading a Dangerous Line” by Mani Shankar Aiyar published on 09, September 2025 argues that naming of military operations by the present government – most recently Operation Sindoor reflects a deliberate “saffronisation of Indian Army.”
The argument is provocative, selective and highly misleading. Having served for 35 years in Indian Army, I never felt that I’m a Hindu or so to say only a Hindu. Being from a pure Sikh Regiment, felt more like a SIKH, behaved like a Sikh and whenever there was a chance to name an institution, exercise or force, the first name that would come to the mind was one that related to Sikh traditions of valour.
Yet no one, including my parents, questioned my secular or Hindu credentials. This is so, because anyone who understands armed forces – the history, military tradition and institutional structure – knows that operation or force names are cultural symbols, not ideological manifestos.
The culture of naming operations and exercises is older than modern warfare and militaries across the globe use evocative names for operations and exercises – sometimes as a code for secrecy, motivation and more often for messaging deterrence to the adversary as much as public consumption.
From earliest days of independent India, armed forces have drawn names from mythology, Sanskrit, geography and abstract concepts. This practice cuts across political regimes led by Congress, BJP or coalitions.
In 1984, almost four decades prior to the debate, Indian Army launched Operation Meghdoot to secure Siachen Glacier. The name comes from Kalidasa’s Sanskrit classic Meghaduta (Cloud Messenger from Hindu Cosmology) where an exiled Yaksha asks a cloud to carry a message to his beloved in the Himalayas. Name was chosen, as it was apt reflection of the nature of operation wherein Indian troops were airlifted like clouds into Himalayan heights. It was nothing but a cultural resonance.
The name of recently concluded operation Sindoor has been used as evidence to create a discourse that Army is getting communalized or saffronised. Rationale for the name is very clear. Terrorists in Pahalgam targeted married Hindu men, widowing women overnight.
Sindoor (vermilion) symbolizes marital bond in Indian culture. Naming the operation which was primarily a retaliatory action against such a heinous crime selectively inflicted on the majority community of the country was meant to be a tribute to victims and their families, not as a religious decree.
Branding it as ideologically motivated reflects ignorance as well as crafty effort to question secular credentials of the armed forces. The act of symbolism and resolve when questioned post-operation Sindoor, a defense ministry official had said, “There is no single written policy on naming. Choices are pragmatic, contextual and meant to evoke resolve.” More often than not, the ideas get generated at very junior level and accepted as such to keep the initiative alive.
The writer of “Hindu Names for Military Operations: Treading a Dangerous Line” has been selective about names in recent times, without considering full spectrum since evolution of Indian Armed Forces.
When names like Operation Trident (1971), Operation Shakti (1998) or Exercise Ashvamedha (2007) were chosen, no one accused the government of the day – the Congress-led in each case – of religious indoctrination.
In the name “Operation Trident”, famous naval strike on Karachi in 1971, “trident” is nothing else than “Trishul”, the weapon of Lord Shiva. Operation Shakti, India’s nuclear test in 1998 drew the name from Goddess power in the Hindu philosophy. But then, these names were accepted as civilizational, not sectarian. When no questions were Congress raised then, why do it now?
To illustrate that there is neither any disruption in naming the operations nor is any correlation with appointment of CDS, it is important to analyze few names that relate to the pre and post-2014 era.
| Era | Operation/Exercise Name | Year | Origin/Meaning | Mythological/ Cultural link |
| Pre-2014 | Operation Meghdoot | 1984 | Kalidasa’s Meghadoota | Yaksha sends clouds to Himalayas |
| Operation Trident | 1971 | Trident (Trishul) | Weapon of Lord Shiva | |
| Operation Pawan | 1987 | Pawan = Wind | Vedic Deity | |
| Operation Shakti | 1998 | Shakti = Power | Goddess Power | |
| Exercise Ashvamedha | 2007 | Royal Horse sacrifice | Ancient Hindu Ritual | |
| Exercise Sudarshan Shakti | 2011 | Sudarshan Chakra | Vishnu’s discus | |
| Missiles Prithvi, Agni, Akash, Nag | Ongoing | Fire, Earth, Sky, Serpent | Vedic / Hindu roots | |
| Exercise Indra | Ongoing | Indra = God of rain | Vedic deity | |
| Post 2014 | Operation Maitri | 2015 | Maitree = Friendship | Sanskrit, Budhist ethos |
| Exercise Shatrujeet | 2016 | Shatrujeet = Enemy Conqueror | Sanskrit motivational |
If Armed Forces were being transformed to suit a particular religion, their names and demography would also have started changing. Instead, the regimental system remains plural – Sikh Regiment, Rajputana Rifles, Maratha Light Infantry, Punjab Regiment, Assam Regiment, Madras regiment, Gorkha Regiment, Brigade of Guards, and so on – each maintaining regional, caste or faith-based traditions. The very regimentation of Indian Armed Forces is proof of pluralism.
If the army was being saffronised as claimed by Aiyar, there would be a written directive mandating Hindu names. Whether it is regiments, exercises or operations, they would all start assuming names relating to Hindu religion only.
Unlike compulsory recruitment of persons of religions based on which regiments exist only Hindus will get recruited. Likewise, promotion criteria will change. There would be no non-Hindu tenanting critical appointments such as Chief of Army / Navy / Air Force. Contrary to this, what we see is continuity: a mixture of neutral, mythological and cultural names chosen for operational and symbolic value.
Seen through Cognitive Warfare lens, such narratives follow a familiar toolkit: disinformation (casting doubts on facts by portraying cultural symbolism as ideological capture), amplification (mainstreaming selective examples while ignoring historical continuity) and de-legitimization (eroding trust in one of the most patriotic institutions).
We saw a similar pattern when opposition leaders questioned authenticity of 2016 Surgical Strikes and 2019 Balakot airstrike. In each case, rumour and insinuation – not evidence became the weapon, with adversarial information networks amplifying the doubts globally.
Current portrayal of operation names as “saffronisation” is another iteration of this strategy. It seeks to spread skepticism about Armed Forces, fracture national consensus and weaken deterrence, thereby contributing towards the enemy’s objectives.
Notwithstanding this, does an Army of a Hindu majority nation not have legitimacy to name an operation based on ethos of its culture, particularly so when the operation relates that community. Tomorrow, someone will question as to why act of terrorism against Hindus was responded through an operation? Only if the causative factor has people of all religions, only then the operation will be called as secular?
False charges of saffronising Armed Forces through operation names collapse under scrutiny. Meghdoot, Trident, Shakti, Ashvamedha – all belong to the pre-2014 era, all drew on Hindu mythology or Sanskrit and chosen under Congress governments. Yet no one cried ideological capture then.
Operation Sindoor is not an aberration but part of long tradition of symbolic naming in Indian military. To cherry pick names today and attribute them to partisan intent is not analysis, it is selective amnesia or deliberate move to sow doubts in the credentials of Armed Forces. It is the same school of thought that questioned credibility of Surgical Strikes and Air Strikes at Balakot. Since there was so much proof on Operation Sindoor, the name was turned problematic.
Indian Armed Forces have always drawn from India’s civilisational well spring for names, and they will continue to do so. That’s heritage, not saffronisation.
(Author is a veteran of Indian Army, experienced in planning & executing key operations with an extensive expertise in information warfare and defence strategy)Heritage, Ethos, Not Saffronisation
About The Author
