Operation Shivshakti, Operation Mahadev, Operation Sindoor: Are India's Military Operations Reflecting Religious Majoritarianism??

“As India’s armed forces adopt increasingly religious nomenclature, are we blurring the line between national defense and ideological assertion?”

A recent remark by a senior congress political leader drew attention to the naming conventions of Indian military operations as many of which appear to be drawn disproportionately from Hindu religious terminology. As someone who identifies as an atheist, I hold no animosity toward any particular religion. However, I believe it’s worth critically examining how state institutions, especially the armed forces, engage with symbolic language. Whenever these institutions employ names that reflect the dominant religion of the ruling political party, it risks sending a message that is not just exclusionary, but provocative. In a region like Jammu & Kashmir, where the local population overwhelmingly follows Islam, naming operations with overtly Hindu religious connotations can be seen as an imposition rather than a strategy. It sends a subtle yet potent signal that this is not just a military response; it’s a cultural message.

Such naming practices undermine the secular spirit of the state and risk further alienating communities already caught in a web of political tension, conflict and historical mistrust. Instead of reinforcing trust between the people and the government, which in my opinion should be the foremost thing to be done, these particularly biased nomenclatures may deepen the psychological divide. Therefore, making the state appear less like a protector and more like a force of domination. And symbolism matters. It shapes perception. It determines whether people see the military as a neutral force safeguarding citizens or as an extension of a cultural agenda.

It is entirely possible to name military operations in ways that inspire national unity without projecting religious identity. Names rooted in natural elements (Parvat, Vayu, Astra), virtues (Nirbhay, Sadbhavana) or historical figures of universal Indian relevance would preserve the richness of Indian linguistic and cultural heritage without having to present a hierarchy of religious or linguistic dominance. 

This isn’t about erasing religious heritage, it’s about ensuring that state power, particularly the symbolic and unifying power of the military, does not appear aligned with or favoring one faith. In a pluralistic democracy like India, every subtle thing matters. Choosing inclusive, non-sectarian names would not only align with constitutional secularism but could also help rebuild a sense of belonging and trust among marginalized populations. In deeply fractured regions, even something as simple as a name can become a bridge or a wall.