Operation Sindoor and the communication lessons!

A week is a long time these days. Just last weekend, we were all consumed by the almost war-like situation between India and Pakistan. Last Saturday, the 10th of May, hostilities between India and Pakistan were paused. Since we have all consumed a lot of material on the cause and effect of Operation Sindoor, this piece will not dwell on a lot of it. The idea of this piece is to discuss some of the lessons on communication that emerged during a conflict like this.

Just last week, a new documentary series on the capture of Osama Bin Laden dropped. If you haven’t watched it yet, I would recommend it as a “Must Watch”. In the first episode of that series – “American Manhunt – Osama Bin Laden”, there is an interesting line that is spoken by Coffer Black, the then Counter Terrorism Director, CIA. He says, “If you have ever read about Major Patton, he will tell you half of leadership is theatre. I slid my chair a little closer to the table, put my elbows on the table. He turned to me, looked right in the eye. I stared at him for five seconds, and then said very simply, Mr. President, if you let me do it, I will have flies walking on their eyeballs in six weeks” And Bush said, “You are in charge!” (sic) The context is the crucial meeting at which President Bush picks on CIA to wage the battle against the Taliban post 9/11 instead of the Defence Department.

One of the important elements of leadership is communication. What you communicate, How you communicate and When you communicate. From this perspective, I would like to pick up 4 communication lessons from the recent Operation Sindoor. Here you go:

1. India naming it – “Operation Sindoor”: In recent times, I would consider this one of the best branding masterstrokes. Whoever conceived this deserves tonnes of appreciation. The obvious takeaways have already been thoroughly analysed by commentators. Sindoor, as a symbol, resonates emotionally with women in India. In Pahalgam, male Hindu tourists were targeted. Sindoor dhaan is a ritual in most Hindu weddings, where vermilion powder is applied to the bride’s forehead. Since the terrorists targeted only Hindus, calling it Sindoor, which is a symbol largely associated with Hindu customs, makes more sense. Additionally, Operation Sindoor was about retribution through a targeted military attack aimed at eliminating terrorists and their backers. The circular dot symbolises a “target,” and the colour red could denote “blood” and “danger for the terrorists.” From a language and visual standpoint as well, Operation Sindoor was on point (pun intended). Lastly, operation names must be simple to communicate and understand. Sindoor excelled in this aspect as well. In contrast, Pakistan’s operation name – “Operation Bunyan-ul-Marsoos” – is long, complicated, and fails all branding tests!

2. The Air-to-Air Missile called Shashi Tharoor: On the battle front, India deployed its very potent missile Brahmos that can fire from all terrains – Surface, Air or Water, which proved to be decisive. However, on the perception battlefield, it was Shashi Tharoor who proved to be India’s most potent air-to-air missile, combating and taking down all false narratives that were coming our way over the airwaves. In all the media interactions spanning across local channels, international channels and digital platforms, Tharoor was consistent and ticked off all three boxes of What, When and How of communication. Despite not being part of the government, he spoke exactly what was expected of him without ever once trying to score political brownie points. Even when probed and provoked by certain media that were against the Modi Sarkar, Tharoor stuck to his guns of laying out India’s position without getting into party politics.

3. The laying out of the Modi Doctrine: I.K. Gujral was India’s External Affairs Minister under Deve Gowda for a short while. He was the Prime Minister of India for even a shorter while. During these innings, he elucidated the “Gujral Doctrine” in foreign policy, which advocated friendly relations with the neighbours. It is said that he advocated the dismantling of our long-standing covert assets in neighbouring countries as part of this doctrine. Vajpayee’s doctrine was espoused by the then NSA as “Coercive diplomacy”, where the idea was to put pressure on Pakistan to come and talk. Manmohan Singh’s doctrine was that of “Strategic Restraint”.

When Narendra Modi took over, it was widely expected that the foreign policy doctrine would be a clear departure from all these. In 2016, after the attack on the Uri military base, India carried out surgical strikes mostly in the POK area. In 2019, after the attack on CRPF personnel in Pulwama, India carried out air strikes on Balakot. Therefore, when the attack on tourists happened at Pahalgam this year, the question among the public, media and commentators alike was not “IF” India will carry out a military strike, but “when” and “how”. In that sense, the Modi doctrine was already clear even before Operation Sindoor.

In his address to the nation on the 12^th of May, Modi took the opportunity to articulate the Modi doctrine to the entire world. That speech was a masterclass in communication. It left no ambiguity in terms of what the future red lines were as far as Pakistan was concerned.

4. Jumping the gun on announcing a ceasefire: If one aspect of communication is What, When, and How, the other aspect is What not, When not, and How not to communicate. Donald Trump’s post on his social media platform, Truth Social, where he declared the announcement of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan on May 11, is a prime example of exactly this. It is now clear that he jumped the gun. It was not a ceasefire and was not mediated by the US. There were firings even after the post. Therefore, he ticked all the boxes of What not, When not, and How not with that post.

The war of the narratives, which India was seemingly losing, finally tilted in India’s favour in the last few days, thanks to a concerted effort in setting it right.

The expression “theatre of war” is usually used to refer to the geographical area encompassing land, air, and sea, where a battle is conducted. But these days, the scope has increasingly widened to include the media (mainstream and social) as well. Unlike yesteryears, any conflict between two countries is unlikely to end with a clear victor on the battlefield these days. Look at the Russia–Ukraine war, for example, or, for that matter, the Israel–Hamas conflict. Victors and the vanquished are being decided in the battle of perceptions. Therefore, it is important to win the narrative war. Hence, communication becomes not just a tool but a weapon – a weapon of mass destruction and mass distraction.

Picture Credit: The Sunday Guardian