Sindoor and Sovereignty: The Perils of Proxy Wars in South Asia

Prof. Simranjit Singh is a Jadetimes Editor in Chief

---

Image Source: Prof. Simranjit Singh

“History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” — Mark Twain

As we stand on the brink of a new geopolitical configuration in South Asia, an unsettling phrase has emerged in some foreign policy circles: “The Mission of Sindoor.” Ostensibly poetic, this phrase—reportedly circulating in strategic backchannels—has come to symbolize an ideological, cultural, and territorial assertion by India over parts of Pakistan, not through soft diplomacy, but through militarized resolve. If the metaphor of sindoor traditionally marks union and protection, its reinterpretation here signifies confrontation and conquest.

And yet, this narrative—if left unchallenged—risks more than just heightened tensions between two nuclear-armed neighbors. It may act as the first domino in a cascade of regional instability, potentially pulling China into the fray. With reports that Washington is quietly urging New Delhi to adopt a more assertive posture towards Islamabad, we must ask ourselves: Are we being nudged into a proxy war not of our own making?

This editorial is a call for sober reflection, restraint, and responsibility—especially when history, ideology, and global power plays are dangerously intersecting.

I. The Dangerous Semantics of “Mission Sindoor”

In a region as volatile as South Asia, words matter. “Mission Sindoor” is not just a moniker—it is a signal, a symbol, and possibly a strategic objective. Derived from a sacred Hindu custom, it frames India’s claim over territories such as PoK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) in emotionally charged terms. For many ultra-nationalist thinkers, the sindoor represents not just matrimony but dominion and permanence. By appropriating this symbol into a military context, we risk transforming sacred sentiment into state-sanctioned aggression.

While this might resonate with domestic majoritarian sentiment, it alienates minorities, stokes fear in neighboring countries, and escalates the ideological divide in a subcontinent already bruised by partition.

It is vital to separate the spiritual from the strategic. India’s legitimacy, both historically and morally, must rest on principles of democracy, dialogue, and development—not domination.

II. Washington’s Whisper: Strategic Autonomy or Proxy Pawn?

Reports from credible diplomatic channels indicate that the United States is subtly pushing India to intensify pressure on Pakistan—both militarily and economically. The logic is clear: With Pakistan-China ties growing stronger, especially under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the U.S. sees an opportunity to counter Chinese influence by destabilizing Islamabad.

This playbook isn’t new. The U.S. has long used regional powers to pursue broader geopolitical aims—from Latin America to the Middle East. The question is: Should India allow itself to become another pawn in Washington’s grand chessboard?

India must remember the costs of alignment without autonomy. Becoming America’s frontline state against China could expose us to severe retaliation—not only from Pakistan but from Beijing itself. China has already warned India against disturbing the status quo in sensitive regions like Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. A war with Pakistan could give China the pretext it seeks to open a second front along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

In such a scenario, India would be fighting two nuclear neighbors while America watches from a safe distance.

III. China’s Strategic Patience—and Its Red Lines

China has adopted a policy of “strategic patience” vis-à-vis India since the Galwan clashes of 2020. However, that patience has limits. Any significant Indian military incursion into PoK—especially if it threatens the CPEC infrastructure—could be viewed by Beijing as a direct challenge to its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments.

Let’s not forget that a substantial part of CPEC runs through Gilgit-Baltistan, a region claimed by India but administered by Pakistan. A move by India to “reclaim” this territory under the emotional and ideological pretext of Mission Sindoorcould be interpreted as economic sabotage by China.

In such a case, Beijing may retaliate militarily, not just economically. The recent upsurge in Chinese infrastructure buildup along the LAC—airstrips, radar systems, and missile bases—should serve as a warning. China is prepared, and it’s watching.

IV. The Pakistani Perspective: A State on Edge

From Pakistan’s vantage point, Indian rhetoric around “Mission Sindoor” and the abolition of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir represent existential threats. Islamabad, already reeling from economic collapse, political instability, and internal terrorism, may interpret a cross-border incursion as a final push to destabilize and delegitimize its sovereignty.

While India may calculate that Pakistan lacks the capacity for a prolonged war, it underestimates the desperation of a state with few options and considerable nuclear capabilities. Pakistan's military doctrine clearly allows for battlefield nuclear weapons in the event of conventional military defeats. The dangers of miscalculation here are monumental.

Moreover, a cornered Pakistan might turn even more completely towards China, Russia, or Iran, drawing India into a pan-regional conflict.

V. Lessons from History: From Kargil to Galwan

The wars of 1947, 1965, 1971, and Kargil in 1999 offer important lessons. The Kargil conflict, though technically a limited war, had far-reaching implications for South Asia’s nuclear calculus. The 1971 war was unique because of its decisive and humanitarian dimension—India intervened to stop a genocide in East Pakistan.

But we must also remember the 1962 war with China, where overconfidence and lack of preparation led to a humiliating defeat. The Galwan Valley clashes in 2020 were a sobering reminder that even without bullets, soldiers can fall, and borders can bleed.

In a multi-front war, with America cheerleading from afar and China taking offense at any Indian assertiveness in Gilgit-Baltistan, India risks repeating the mistakes of 1962—this time on two fronts.

VI. The Domestic Cost of Foreign Adventurism

Militarism abroad often leads to suppression at home. As the drums of war beat louder, domestic dissent gets labeled anti-national, and freedom of speech becomes collateral damage. Political leaders use the war narrative to distract from inflation, unemployment, and rising inequality.

If India marches towards war under the guise of “Mission Sindoor,” it may also find itself sliding into authoritarianism. The Emergency of 1975 is a grim reminder of how national security can be used to justify democratic backsliding.

The political costs of war will be borne not by defense contractors or ideologues, but by ordinary citizens: soldiers on the front lines, farmers struggling with fertilizer shortages, students facing budget cuts, and small business owners crushed by inflation.

VII. What Should Be India’s Response?

1. Strategic Autonomy: India must reaffirm its tradition of non-alignment—not as passive neutrality but as active independence. We are neither America’s shield nor China’s prey.

2. Diplomatic Balancing: Renew trilateral or backchannel diplomacy with Pakistan and China. Engage Russia and Gulf states to de-escalate.

3. Military Readiness Without Provocation: Strengthen border infrastructure, intelligence, and cyber capabilities—but avoid symbolic operations that provoke escalation.

4. Cultural Restraint: Let’s reclaim sindoor as a symbol of love and respect, not military conquest. Let’s not turn sacred idioms into instruments of statecraft.

5. Media Responsibility: The press must resist jingoism and perform its duty—to inform, not inflame.

Conclusion: Sindoor or Saffron?

India stands at a critical juncture. It can choose the sindoor of cultural pride, mutual respect, and peaceful progress—or the saffron of majoritarian aggression and militarized nationalism. One unites; the other divides. One heals; the other harms.

If America truly respects India as a global power, it must respect our strategic independence. And if India truly respects itself, it must not seek glory in war but dignity in peace.

History will remember whether India wore the sindoor of wisdom or the ashes of war. The choice is ours—and the time is now.