Unlike the Abrahamic tradition of conquest and domination, the Hindu approach to war — rooted in Dharma — seeks justice, not territory; balance, not revenge
The Hindu civilisation was first exposed to a new experience when Muhammad bin Qasim, an Arab invader, arrived in Sindh. He came from Arabia by land and sea routes. While defending his kingdom, Sindh, Raja Dahir Sen, its last Hindu ruler, was killed and subsequently, common folk were butchered. For no rhyme or reason evident to Hindus, many temples were demolished, their idols smashed and priests killed.
We call this a new experience because common folk and priests, who had nothing to do with fighting the invader Qasim, too were butchered. Nor was there any reason to demolish temples, except for the reason that they were of another religion the invaders hated (and still do). In the Hindu understanding, these are outright adharmic acts. From that day in the year 712 AD to the time of writing this article, the invaders, except for the Europeans, have not bothered to understand what temples and the idols worshipped in them mean for Hindus. Temples are not mere prayer halls, as the Abrahamic places of worship are.
They are deeply spiritual, sacred places where the worshipper connects with the divine. In the Hindu worldview, a war is seldom fought with the intent of capturing the enemy’s territory. Attacking others’ kingdom(s) is normally to rectify a wrong and not to dispossess the enemy for self-aggrandisement.
It is not that such aggression has not been committed by Hindus against each other; there might have been a few such wars, but they were adharmic acts, deserving of punishment due to their being dushkarmas (bad deeds).
Let us look at the most recent example of Operation Sindoor. India’s declared aim was to defeat and destroy terrorists — only terrorists — and, as far as possible, not to touch either common folk or even enemy soldiers. Our representative regularly informed the required channels of our intent in this regard, because our military action was against terrorists, and no one else.
That is the essence of the term dharmic, i.e., ethical, distinct from merciless. In contrast, Pakistan invariably does not care whether civilians, women and children, old or young, are hit or killed. It has chosen terrorism as it is a cheap way of fighting a superior India whose military might it cannot match.
Uniforms aren’t needed; ragtag outfits can kill and escape accountability. If terrorists are captured or killed, the sponsoring country can safely disown the slain individual. No contact is maintained with the families of the killed. All in all, from the patrons’ point of view, terrorists are assets with few liabilities. Pakistani infiltrations, therefore, could continue no matter how poor the country’s economy has become in recent years. It is a wonder that the country has managed to remain a member of the United Nations Organisation (UNO), which is generally seen as a respectable global body.
Not only that, Pakistan has once even been the president of the Security Council by a strange ‘rotating’ arrangement! Fundamentally, anyone wise would agree that the proper purpose of war should be deriving as well as enjoying a lasting peace. This means that such a war ought to be a dharmic or an ethical one. In common parlance, the minimum expectation would be that in such a combat, there should be no hitting below the belt.
In the Hindu view, no matter how ethical the combat or hostilities are, the killing of women and children is unthinkable. The murdering of husbands in the presence of their wives and children is even worse, because, to a Hindu woman, her husband’s life is more sacred than her own. All this is so far as means go.
As far as the ends are concerned, it should not be the acquisition of another country’s territory or assets to enrich one’s own country. India’s experience of invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad Ghori has been detestable. Ghori, an Afghan Turkic invader, was routed by the Hindu monarch of Delhi, Prithviraj Chauhan, in the First Battle of Tarain in 1191 AD, but his life was spared by the Hindu victor.
Ghori, instead of remembering his debt to Maharaja Prithviraj Chauhan, attacked again in 1192 AD. He managed to win the Second Battle of Tarain but, far from showing any gratitude for being let off alive the previous time, had Prithviraj blinded and murdered. This was the Islamic invader’s ‘gratitude’ towards a man who could have easily had him killed but chose to spare his life.
Europe has over the centuries witnessed many a war. The cruelties witnessed, especially in the intra-Christian wars (Catholic versus Protestant, Orthodox versus non-Orthodox) were harsh.
World Wars I and II claimed up to 100 million people, soldiers and civilians. WWI solved nothing; it only led to WWII, which produced the infamous Cold War, which ended in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which formerly had been the Czarist Russian Empire. Europe is still at war. There are guidelines set out by the Geneva Convention on how to treat captured and/or wounded soldiers in war.
However, there are no ethical rules. The concept of the dharmic has no place in the European ethos. The difference between the Hindu and Western/Abrahamic worldviews is stark.
(The writer is a former Member of Rajya Sabha and a well-known columnist. Views are personal)
