When four terrorists attacked a popular tourist site in Pahalgam on April 22, they targeted Hindu men, with a few exceptions, and took 26 lives, all men. Intriguingly, the terrorists spared all children and adult women – the wives and daughters of the deceased men.

The attack has brought the politics of gender in the conflict to centre stage. Women are being used instrumentally while pushing the larger narrative of payback.

On May 6, the Indian forces retaliated with a precision attack, named Operation Sindoor. The state conveyed its desire to avenge the lost lives on behalf of India’s widows. While it is viewed as having sent a strong message to those operating what India described as “terrorist infrastructure”, touting this attack as a women-centric narrative warrants attention.

The expedient nature of this variety of “justice” aside, one must ask the question: what actually lies in store for these grieving women?

In the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, grief understandably engulfed the country – before morphing into hate. The image of newly-wed Himanshi Narwal, sitting numb in the Pahalgam meadow beside her dead husband, naval officer Vinay Narwal, swept through the media and social media platforms.

The image and AI-generated Ghibli versions of it became the symbol of grief, loss and helplessness.

But soon, an aggressive, hypermasculine narrative of protectionism emerged – the young widow, many decided, must be “saved” and given justice through revenge. Her image became the conduit for expressing bloodthirst, hate and a tool for garnering communal division.

As the Indian authorities announced at a media briefing on the day after Operation Sindoor, by orchestrating a targeted attack on Hindu men, the terrorists aimed to stoke communal distrust. This, the attackers hoped, would fuel a never-ending loop of violence within India.

Terror was unleashed and its aftermath generated communal hate and Islamophobia, targeting ordinary Indians who had nothing to do with the attackers.

However, amidst the din, women survivors of the tragedy spoke their minds. Some questioned the massive security lapse that had resulted in the attack. Several others emphasised how Kashmiris around the spot became the first responders, taking them to safety when no official help was on hand.

While demanding justice, Himanshi Narwal appealed for peace and spoke against hate-mongering against Muslims and Kashmiris. Shortly after, she found herself at the receiving end of vile trolling.

The woman who had been held up as the ideal wife and projected as the poster girl of the grief caused by the terror attack was dragged down from the pedestal and her character was besmirched.

But why this drastic shift in script? It is because Narwal violated the template of the grieving wife. She was expected to be helpless and lose hope. Her wails would then activate the drums of war. However, her call for peace was an act of defiance and a rebellion against the politics of hate.

Why did the terrorists spare the women in the first place? They were not acting chivalrous, not by any measure. They aimed to use women as bearers of their message to the Indian government.

The terrorists took the lives of these men, who in traditional society are projected as being the “protectors” of women, to convey a larger message of hate to the state – the protector of all citizens.

Women are being used as instruments of politics. The attackers aimed to use women to spread their message of terror. Hatemongers were angered when Narwal refused to participate in their campaign against Muslims and Kashmiris in India.

Both sides aim to portray women as the perfect victims – helpless and voiceless, devoid of agency. Both sides are motivated by hate-filtered narratives in which the lives of these grieving women are nothing but an instrument for their ends.

War and conflict have historically been a gendered arena. While war is a male domain, women are systematically excluded from the mechanisms of power, deciding on war. Women, at best, are the conduits in building the narratives of war and conflict. It is not the first time in history that women have been caught in the crossfire of terror, hate, and war. Certainly, this is not going to be the last.

However, it is deeply telling that in contemporary India, defying hate in favour of peace is a powerful act of subversion.

Debangana Chatterjee is Assistant Professor (Social Science) and Co-director, Centre for Women and the Law at the National Law School of India University in Bangalore.