Operation Sindoor
Competing Narratives in South Asia’s Airstrike Diplomacy
In April 2025, a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam killed 26 civilians, triggering a brief but intense military confrontation between India and Pakistan. In response, India launched a calibrated air operation—known as Operation Sindoor—on May 7, targeting cross-border terror infrastructure.
Operation Sindoor, launched with precision airstrikes and tightly scripted briefings by the Indian government, marked a new phase in India’s regional security doctrine.
The operation’s name—Sindoor, which refers to the red powder traditionally worn by married Hindu women as a symbol of devotion and continuity—evoked cultural rootedness and domestic sanctity. It may have been a deliberate invocation of India’s civilizational strength and internal cohesion, subtly reinforcing the image of a modern state defending its pluralistic values.
Within seventy-two hours, the information environment had fragmented into several distinct threads: conflicting accounts of the ceasefire’s origins, scrutiny of Chinese and Turkish weapon systems used by Pakistan, and the broader strategic calculus involving the United States and China. The analysis that follows maps these concurrent narratives and their points of interaction.
Narrative One: Restraint, Focus, and Optics
In the operation’s opening hours, India paired military action with a narrative of precision and self-control. Official statements emphasized that the strikes were focused, intelligence-driven, and limited in duration, targeting only terror infrastructure.
The presentation was equally deliberate. Colonel Sophia Qureshi, a decorated Muslim signals officer, and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, a Hindu helicopter pilot, led the initial briefings. Their calm, data-driven delivery highlighted verified targets, a 25-minute engagement window, and operational restraint—projecting a disciplined, professional image.
Social media quickly amplified images of the two officers, often captioned Naari Shakti (“woman power”), positioning India as a pluralistic, gender-inclusive democracy. The contrast with Pakistan’s traditionally male-dominated security apparatus appeared intentional. By foregrounding two women from different religious backgrounds, Delhi sought to reframe the confrontation—not as a religious conflict, but as a clash between modern pluralism and a state perceived to tolerate cross-border extremism. This visual messaging was reinforced domestically, with events such as a ‘Tiranga Yatra’ held in Bhopal to honor the two officers—signaling both grassroots pride and national unity.
Observers praised the clarity and symbolism of the briefings, though some noted their highly choreographed nature—underscoring India’s growing fluency in narrative warfare.
Narrative Two: Ceasefire—Bilateral Restraint vs. External Credit
New Delhi presented the ceasefire as the result of direct military-to-military contact, reinforcing its stance that Kashmir is a strictly internal matter. Notably, Indian officials avoided the term “ceasefire,” instead framing the outcome as a practical “understanding.”
Islamabad, by contrast, publicly thanked President Trump for his “guidance” in reaching an agreement—thereby elevating Pakistan’s diplomatic profile. In Washington, officials claimed that Secretary Rubio had facilitated communication between the directors-general of military operations, while President Trump took personal credit for defusing tensions. These competing claims served distinct audiences: strategic autonomy for India, international validation for Pakistan, and diplomatic capital for the United States.
Subsequent developments, however, signaled a degree of mutual de-escalation. Both sides agreed to extend confidence-building measures along the Line of Control, reducing alertness levels and restarting backchannel dialogue. This may point to a shared interest in managing escalation, despite divergent public narratives.
Narrative Three: China, Turkey, and the Global Arms Race
Pakistan’s use of Chinese and Turkish systems turned the skies over Kashmir into a showroom for competing defense technologies.
A parallel discourse emerged around military capability and strategic positioning. Pakistan’s reported use of Chinese J-10C fighters, PL-15E missiles, and Turkish Bayraktar drones offered real-time performance data for Beijing’s and Ankara’s defense sectors. For Chinese military analysts, the encounter was seen as a “proof-of-concept” for the credibility and export viability of their systems.
India’s response underscored its shift toward indigenous technology under the 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' initiative. The Indian Air Force reportedly neutralized these advanced platforms using homegrown systems such as the BrahMos cruise missile, the Akash surface-to-air missile system, and the D4 anti-drone suite. The effectiveness of these deployments served both strategic and symbolic purposes: showcasing India’s technological competence while challenging China’s growing defense export ambitions.
While Beijing’s official response was muted, Western military analysts began extracting tactical lessons for air combat and procurement strategy. John Spencer, a U.S. strategist, called the operation a “decisive power” move that redefined India’s deterrence posture—placing its technological independence at the forefront.
The Communications Environment: Layered, Simultaneous, Unstable
These narratives—military, diplomatic, technological—coexist, often intersect, and sometimes directly contradict each other. They are propagated through formal press briefings, informal diplomatic channels, and the algorithmic churn of social media.
Each stakeholder tailors its message to serve a strategic aim: India asserts sovereignty and self-reliance, Pakistan seeks diplomatic elevation, the United States claims crisis-management credentials, and a broader conversation unfolds about the performance and positioning of Chinese and Turkish military technologies. Meanwhile, India’s internal narrative highlights civil-military unity, gender inclusivity, and national resilience.
The result is a fractured yet interconnected communication space where no single narrative dominates for long. In this environment, strategic messaging no longer hinges on control. It requires real-time mapping of narrative terrain, rapid response to emerging dissonance, and the agility to recalibrate messages across multiple platforms and audiences.
Guest contributor: Rajit Hewagama
Rajit Hewagama is a digital strategist and communications consultant with a background spanning law, politics, and digital strategy. He advises senior leadership on shaping and executing communication strategies at the highest levels. His consultancy work has supported organizations, high-profile individuals, and advocacy groups in navigating complex messaging environments and developing content strategies tailored to the realities of modern discourse.
Educated in law at the University of Bristol and holding a Master’s in E-commerce and Business from Deakin University, Rajit has a systems-level perspective to political analysis, drawing on theories from critical sociology, psychoanalysis, and systems theory. He is especially interested in how media structures influence political behavior. You may find his Substack here:
📍Sri Lanka
 | A guest post by
|