Attitudes to Conflict Issues

Why conflict creates moral problems

Conflict arises when people or groups have opposing interests, aims or beliefs. Disagreement need not become violent: discussion and compromise can resolve it. Violence involves harming others; war is organised armed conflict; terrorism uses violence or its threat to spread fear and pursue an ideological aim. Terrorism is not necessarily religious.

These issues create difficult moral choices. Violence can kill and injure people, damage communities and encourage retaliation. War can place civilians as well as fighters in danger. Yet refusing to use force may also leave people exposed to aggression. The central question is therefore not simply whether peace is desirable, but how injustice can be stopped without creating further suffering.

Ahimsa, duty and responsibility

A central Hindu principle is ahimsa, or non-harming. It encourages Hindus to avoid violence and seek dialogue, forgiveness and reconciliation. These approaches can interrupt revenge: forgiving an opponent does not make an injustice acceptable, but can make a peaceful future possible.

Karma gives another reason to take violence seriously. Actions have moral consequences, including consequences for future lives. Harming others is therefore not merely a way of obtaining an immediate advantage; the person acting remains morally responsible.

However, Hindu teaching also emphasises dharma, meaning righteous conduct and duty. Protecting others and resisting wrongdoing may be duties. This creates a tension: what should someone do when avoiding violence seems to allow injustice to continue?

Some Hindus accept dharmayuddha, a righteous war, when it defends righteousness and peaceful methods have been exhausted. On this view, force is an exceptional response to injustice, not something justified by anger, revenge or personal ambition. Other Hindus give greater weight to non-violent resistance, arguing that harmful methods undermine a righteous aim.

Bhagavad Gita 11: Arjuna’s difficult duty

The Bhagavad Gita is set within the Mahabharata, against the background of the Kurukshetra war. Arjuna is a warrior who is reluctant to fight, and Krishna guides him. This is a sacred narrative about moral responsibility, not a general instruction to seek war.

In chapter 11, Krishna grants Arjuna divine vision of his cosmic form. Arjuna sees the universe within Krishna and witnesses warriors entering his terrifying mouths, like moths rushing into a fire. The vision fills him with awe and fear: destruction is shown as part of a reality far greater than an individual person.

In 11.32, Krishna declares, ‘I am mighty Time’, the source of destruction, and says that the opposing warriors will die even without Arjuna’s participation. In 11.33–34, he tells Arjuna to rise and fight as an instrument of his work.

A Hindu who accepts force in defence of dharma could argue that Arjuna must fulfil his duty rather than abandon it because it is painful. Refusing to act is not automatically morally better if it permits wrongdoing.

However, 11.55 describes the devotee as being ‘without malice toward all beings’. This matters when interpreting the command to fight: duty must not become an excuse for hatred. Some Hindus also interpret the battle spiritually, as representing the struggle against ignorance and destructive tendencies within oneself.

Chapter 11 therefore challenges the claim that Hinduism always forbids fighting, but it does not justify every war. Applying Arjuna’s situation to a modern conflict still requires an argument that the action genuinely upholds dharma.

Gandhi: resisting injustice without harming opponents

Mahatma Gandhi developed satyagraha, meaning ‘insistence on truth’, as a way of confronting injustice through non-violent resistance. His approach connected the pursuit of justice with ahimsa: opponents should be challenged, but not treated as people whose suffering is desirable.

This is active resistance rather than passive acceptance. Its aim is to change an unjust relationship without reproducing the violence being opposed. Dialogue, reconciliation, tolerance and forgiveness can support that work by making cooperation possible after conflict.

Calcutta, September 1947: putting non-violence into action

Around Partition in August 1947, when India was divided into India and Pakistan, Hindu–Muslim communal violence threatened people’s safety. In Calcutta, now called Kolkata, Gandhi stayed at Beliaghata and worked with the Muslim political leader H. S. Suhrawardy. They addressed prayer meetings attended by Hindus and Muslims and encouraged unity. Gandhi also held lengthy discussions with Hindu opponents of his peace mission. Working across religious divisions demonstrated his belief that neighbours should be treated as fellow citizens, not enemies.

After violence broke out again, Gandhi began a fast on 1 September 1947. By risking his own life rather than attacking others, he sought to awaken people’s consciences and prompt them to restore peace. He urged supporters not merely to fast alongside him, but to go into affected neighbourhoods, reassure frightened people and help displaced Muslims return home safely. His aim was practical protection and equal citizenship, not just expressions of goodwill.

By 4 September, the authorities and members of the public reported that no incident had occurred during the previous twenty-four hours. People involved in rioting came to confess and surrender weapons. Gandhi ended his fast that evening after leaders gave a written assurance that they would work to preserve peace and risk their lives to stop renewed riots.

The intervention helped restore peace in Calcutta through a combination of the fast, dialogue and local action. It did not mean that Gandhi alone ended all Partition violence. Its importance is that non-violent resistance encouraged people to take responsibility for protecting neighbours of another religion: peace required changed behaviour as well as an end to fighting.

The strength of Gandhi’s approach is that it seeks both justice and a lasting peace. Its difficulty is that an aggressor may refuse to listen or continue harming others. A Hindu defending limited force might therefore ask whether non-violent action can protect victims quickly enough. A supporter of Gandhi’s approach could reply that retaliation risks deepening hatred and making future peace harder.

Terrorism and the protection of innocent people

Terrorism makes fear itself a weapon. Attacks on civilians harm people who may have no responsibility for the grievance being expressed. Hindu principles of ahimsa and moral responsibility provide strong reasons to reject such attacks.

A claim to act for religion does not establish that an action fulfils dharma. A Hindu response can distinguish resisting injustice from using terror: a righteous aim cannot simply excuse malicious or indiscriminate harm. Religious conflict also poses a challenge to Hindu communities, because actual behaviour may contradict their teachings about non-harming and tolerance.

Peaceful activism, dialogue and reconciliation offer alternatives. They address disagreement without assuming that an entire religious or social group is an enemy.

Non-religious views and Hindu responses

Atheism means not believing in gods; it is not a single ethical system. An atheist may reject war because of the suffering it causes, or accept defensive force to protect people. Neither position needs belief in karma or a divine command. An atheist could question whether an appeal to Krishna’s authority is a sufficient public justification for modern military action.

A Hindu could respond that religious teachings guide believers’ responsibilities, while also offering reasons others can assess: protection of victims, avoidance of hatred and exhaustion of peaceful alternatives. The disagreement concerns the authority behind the judgement, not necessarily the desired outcome.

Humanists emphasise reason, empathy, human dignity and wellbeing. In its statement of 13 October 2023, Humanists UK condemned Hamas and religious terrorism, alongside state and terrorist violence against civilians. It expressed concern for innocent people in both Israel and Gaza and opposed hatred towards Jewish communities. Its reasoning placed human life above group allegiance.

The statement also encouraged dialogue and empathy, supporting those working for peace and justice. This provides common ground with Hindu teachings on ahimsa, tolerance and reconciliation. The important difference is that Humanist reasoning does not depend on scripture, divine authority or future lives.

Reaching a justified judgement

The strongest argument for non-violence is that it respects life and avoids turning resistance into revenge. Gandhi’s Calcutta intervention shows that rejecting violence need not mean accepting injustice. The strongest argument for limited force is that protecting victims may sometimes require action against an aggressor, as the discussion of Arjuna’s duty suggests.

A defensible conclusion might therefore reject terrorism and attacks on civilians, prioritise peaceful solutions, but allow protective force in exceptional circumstances. Alternatively, a pacifist conclusion could argue that non-violent means are essential to achieving a genuinely peaceful outcome. Either judgement needs to address its hardest objection: how to protect victims without allowing protection to become a justification for further wrongdoing.