“The Tao nourishes by not forcing. By not dominating, the Master leads” – Lao Tzu
Patriotism in India has taken a complex turn. While it is natural and good to feel pride in a nation’s history, culture, and heritage, I’ve noticed this positive emotion frequently devolves into something toxic: mindless arrogance and superiority. This, I believe, is merely a symptom of a deep-seated national insecurity. I see this aggressive pride most often in countrymen whose ancestors were subjects of imperialism. These feelings of victimhood and bitterness have been passed down through generations, feeding a cycle of hatred that quickly solidifies into an “Us vs. Them” ideology. It is deeply disappointing to witness such extreme, tribal views persist in the modern era, especially when conflicts between nations are so often a product of state narratives rather than genuine ethical disagreement. Wars are rarely fought to defend moral principles; they are usually waged to assert dominance over others.
As a young person, I hold onto the hope that a new generation shall emerge, united globally by ideas of freedom, transparency, and revolutionizing the political sphere. But realizing this ideal requires immense financial and human resources, and few people, myself included, are willing to take that risk. I find myself attracted to the core ideology of the Indian National Congress, yet I cannot ignore how dynasty politics, lack of vision, and minority appeasement have hampered the party’s moral foundation. The true architects of that movement were the framers of the constitution and the founders of independent India: Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru, Maulana Azad, Sardar Patel, B.R. Ambedkar, and many others who contributed their hearts and minds to the nation’s birth. Similarly, freedom fighters like Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, and Rani Lakshmi Bai will forever inspire us. Their fight, however, was fundamentally against colonization, a system of oppression, and not against the British people as a race. In fact, many British thinkers and activists, such as Bertrand Russell, Charles Freer Andrews, Annie Besant, and Madeleine Slade, actively opposed their own government’s actions and came to help India. This distinction is crucial to remember today.
My core conviction is simple: I love my country India, but more than that, I love humanity. People are complex everywhere; some are good, some are bad. I have spent time reading the historical and contemporary accounts of people across the world, and I’ve concluded that we are fundamentally the same. We live, we love, we lie, we eat, we sleep, we play, we kill. When members of my own community try to justify violence by labeling entire groups (like Muslims or Europeans) as barbarians based on the acts of Mughals or Britishers, I simply recognize that they have only seen one side of the coin. This is why, though I am a strong supporter of pacifism, I believe that violent retaliation is sometimes just in extraordinary cases. But this action must be measured with extreme caution, and the door for reconciliation and discussion must always be left open. The conflict between India and Pakistan after a terrorist attack, for instance, should never be seen as a fight against the Pakistani people. It is a fight against the goons who are causing chaos. These perpetrators are not scholars, religious, or enlightened. They are simply goons, wolves in the skin of sheep, who use religion as a shield. And India is not exempt from this phenomenon; I have observed a worrying surge in extremist Hindu groups committing crimes in the name of faith in recent years.
To navigate this difficult space, we need principles of ethical conflict that transcend modern politics. I find these principles perfectly demonstrated in ancient texts, which preach restraint and justice over vengeance. The Holy Qur’an, specifically in Surah 2:190-194, provides concise laws for a just conflict: “Fight in the cause of Allah only against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors. . . But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
In my interpretation, the term “disbelievers” or aggressors in this context refers to people with demonic traits, those full of false pride and arrogance, not specifically Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists. This passage is best understood within its historical context, where the early Muslim community was persecuted. George Bernard Shaw famously regarded Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a savior of humanity, and this ethical restraint confirms that view.The very same principles of just conduct are evident in the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata. Lord Krishna, a pacifist himself, made extensive efforts to solve the disputes with the Kauravas through dialogue. He only permitted the war when all other avenues were exhausted, ensuring the effort was rooted in the greater good for society. This high standard of conduct is also present in the lives of those who chose a different path: complete non-violence. The approach of Buddha, Jesus (through the Sermon on the Mount), and Guru Tegh Bahadur demonstrates that retaliation can also be achieved through moral resistance. Mahatma Gandhi incorporated these teachings into the political philosophy of Satyagraha, leaving a powerful, inspiring legacy for future generations. In the end, whether we choose limited, just retaliation or complete non-violence, the ethical standard is the same: the action must target aggression, not humanity. Our loyalty must be to our conscience first, and our country second.
Notice – This article is a chapter from Glimpses of My Worldview (2025). It is being republished here on my blog as part of a complete serialization of the work.