Modern Hinduism is frequently misinterpreted as a purely pacifist, completely non-violent religion—a misconception that stems primarily from selective interpretation of Hindu texts, colonial influences, and Mahatma Gandhi's political philosophy¹². The reality presented in original Hindu scriptures—both Shrutis (heard revelations like the Vedas) and Smritis (remembered texts like the Manusmriti and epics)—is far more nuanced and contextual.

The "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" Half-Truth

The phrase most commonly cited to support the pacifist interpretation is "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" (non-violence is the highest duty). However, this represents only half of the complete verse from the Mahabharata. The full phrase reads³⁴⁵:

अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च

Ahimsa paramo dharmah, dharma himsa tathaiva cha

"Non-violence is the ultimate dharma. So too is violence in service of Dharma."

This second line, consistently omitted in popular discourse, fundamentally changes the meaning. The complete teaching establishes that while non-violence is generally preferred, violence undertaken to protect dharma (righteousness), defend the innocent, or combat evil is equally dharmic⁶⁷.

What Hindu Texts Actually Say About Responding to Aggression

The Manusmriti on Self-Defense

The Manusmriti, one of the most important Smriti texts, explicitly addresses the right to self-defense and response to aggressors. It identifies six types of aggressors (ātatāyī)⁸⁹:

1. A poison giver
2. One who sets fire to another's house
3. One who attacks with deadly weapons
4. One who plunders wealth
5. One who forcibly occupies another's land
6. One who kidnaps another's wife

Manusmriti 8.350-351 states unequivocally⁸¹⁰:

"One may slay without hesitation an assassin who approaches (with murderous intent), whether (he be one's) teacher, a child or an aged man, or a Brahmana deeply versed in the Vedas. By killing an assassin the slayer incurs no guilt, whether (he does it) publicly or secretly; in that case fury recoils upon fury."

This verse makes clear that self-defense against an aggressor is not only permitted but required, regardless of the aggressor's status. The text emphasizes that killing in legitimate self-defense incurs no sin (pāpam)⁸¹⁰.

Manusmriti 8.344-347 further declares⁸:

"A king who desires to gain the throne of Indra and imperishable eternal fame, shall not, even for a moment, neglect (to punish) the man who commits violence. He who commits violence must be considered as the worst offender...But that king who pardons the perpetrator of violence quickly perishes and incurs hatred."

The Bhagavad Gita on Righteous Warfare

The Bhagavad Gita, perhaps Hinduism's most influential philosophical text, directly addresses the duty to fight against aggression and injustice. When Arjuna hesitates to fight in the Kurukshetra war, Krishna instructs him¹¹¹²¹³:

Bhagavad Gita 2.31-33:

"Considering your specific duty as a kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation. If, however, you refuse to fight this righteous war, abandoning your social duty and reputation, you will certainly incur sin."

The Gita establishes that violence performed as part of one's sacred duty (svadharma), particularly for kshatriyas (the warrior-protector class), when undertaken without selfish attachment and for the purpose of upholding dharma, is not only justified but morally required¹⁴¹⁵. Krishna emphasizes that the soul is eternal and indestructible, and that failing to fight against injustice when it is one's duty constitutes a greater sin than the violence of righteous warfare¹¹¹³.

The Concept of Dharmayuddha (Righteous War)

Hindu texts extensively discuss dharmayuddha—righteous or just warfare. The principles include¹⁶¹⁷:

• War must be avoided through sincere dialogue and must be the last resort¹⁸
• The cause must be just and the purpose virtuous—to restrain the wicked and restore peace¹⁴
• It must be waged by a legitimate authority¹⁶
• Even during war, there must be restraint: no attacking unarmed opponents, wounded warriors, non-combatants, women, children, or civilians¹⁷¹⁴
• Weapons must be proportionate to the objective¹⁸

The Bhagavad Gita advocates that while violence may be necessary, it must be executed with inner restraint, without hatred or passion—maintaining calmness and peace even in the midst of battle¹⁹¹⁴. This nuanced approach accepts the reality of war while seeking to minimize its destructive effects.

The Ramayana on Protection and Self-Defense

The Ramayana provides numerous examples of justified violence for protection of dharma. When Rama hesitates to kill the demoness Tataka because she is female, his guru Vishwamitra instructs him that protecting the innocent from those who terrorize and kill justifies the use of lethal force, regardless of the aggressor's gender²⁰²¹. Rama's killing of Tataka is described as uttamam—"an eminently justifiable action"²².

The epic emphasizes that violence undertaken for protection of the vulnerable, self-defense, and preservation of righteousness constitutes proper conduct for warriors²³. The text explicitly states that "all living creatures must strive to the limit of their strength to save their own lives" and that self-preservation is a valid justification for violence.

The Kshatriya Dharma: The Duty to Protect

Hindu texts consistently emphasize that the kshatriya (warrior-protector) class has a specific duty (svadharma) to protect society through the application of force when necessary. The term kshatriya itself derives from kṣat (hurt) and trāyate (to protect)—literally "one who protects from harm"²⁴²⁵²⁶.

This duty includes¹²²⁴:

• Protecting citizens from oppression and violence
• Punishing criminals and maintaining law and order
• Defending the kingdom from invaders
• Ensuring justice through proportionate use of force

To refuse this duty when faced with aggression is considered a sin—a dereliction of one's dharma¹³¹⁵²⁶. As Krishna tells Arjuna, "a warrior who becomes non-violent on the battlefield" commits adharma (unrighteousness).

Ahimsa in Context: Relative, Not Absolute

It's crucial to understand that ahimsa (non-violence) in Hindu philosophy is relative, not absolute²⁷. Unlike the English word "non-violence," which carries an absolute meaning, Hindu texts present ahimsa as contextual³:

• For ascetics and renunciates (sannyasins) who have withdrawn from worldly affairs, total non-violence is the ideal⁷²⁷
• For householders (gṛhasthas) and those engaged in protecting society, ahimsa must be balanced with the duty to protect dharma³⁷
• Violence to stop greater violence can itself be considered ahimsa²⁸²⁷

The Mahabharata states this explicitly: "Abstention from cruelty is the highest Religion...but violence in service of Dharma is equally supreme"⁶⁷. This means that allowing evil to flourish through inaction is a greater violation of ahimsa than using necessary force to stop it²⁸.

Colonial and Gandhian Influences on the Pacifist Misconception

The interpretation of Hinduism as fundamentally pacifist gained prominence through several historical factors:

Colonial Manipulation

British colonial administrators and scholars selectively translated and interpreted Hindu texts to present Hinduism as passive and fatalistic, which served colonial interests by discouraging armed resistance²⁹³⁰³¹. They emphasized ahimsa while de-emphasizing the extensive martial traditions and righteous warfare concepts in Hindu texts. Max Müller and other colonial-era translators admitted to interpreting scriptures "with a colonial mindset"²⁹.

Gandhi's Reinterpretation

Mahatma Gandhi popularized the incomplete "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" phrase and applied ahimsa as an absolute political principle rather than the contextual ethical concept found in Hindu texts¹²³². While Gandhi referenced the Bhagavad Gita as his spiritual guide, he "chose to emphasize the aspects...that supported his views on non-violence, sidestepping its calls to arms"². Critics argue that his interpretation of ahimsa diverged significantly from traditional Hindu teachings, which explicitly sanction righteous warfare¹²⁸.

Loss of Martial Context

Before colonial rule, India had extensive martial traditions and sophisticated military systems³³³⁴. The British systematically suppressed indigenous military culture and reinterpreted Hindu texts to serve their "divide and rule" strategy³¹. Post-independence education systems continued teaching these colonial interpretations, perpetuating the pacifist misconception²⁹².

The Appropriate Response to Aggression According to Hindu Texts

Hindu scriptures provide clear guidance on responding to aggressors:

1. Self-defense is an absolute right: One may defend oneself, one's family, property, and dharma without hesitation, even if it requires killing the aggressor³⁵¹⁰⁸

2. Protection of the innocent is a sacred duty: Those with the capacity and responsibility to protect (especially kshatriyas) must intervene against aggressors to prevent harm to the defenseless²⁴²⁶⁶

3. Violence must be proportionate and restrained: Even justified violence should be the minimum necessary to neutralize the threat, executed without hatred or passion³⁶¹⁴¹⁸

4. Diplomacy first, force last: All peaceful means must be exhausted before resorting to violence³⁷³⁸. The Mahabharata shows the Pandavas attempting peace repeatedly before accepting war as unavoidable¹⁶¹⁸

5. No mercy for unrepentant aggressors: Those who persistently commit atrocities and refuse to reform must be stopped through force⁹⁶⁸

6. Dharma is paramount: The ultimate criterion is whether action upholds or violates dharma. Inaction in the face of evil constitutes adharma¹³²⁸⁶

The principle is succinctly captured in the Manu-Samhita's declaration: "Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah"—"Dharma protects those who protect it"⁶. This establishes a reciprocal obligation: if one fails to defend dharma when it is threatened, one cannot expect dharma to protect them.

Conclusion

Far from being a religion of absolute pacifism, Hindu texts present a sophisticated ethical framework that distinguishes between violence born of anger, hatred, or greed (which is condemned) and violence undertaken as a last resort to protect dharma, defend the innocent, and stop aggressors (which is prescribed)¹¹¹⁴²⁴. The modern misconception of Hinduism as purely non-violent stems largely from incomplete quotations, colonial reinterpretation, and political movements that served specific historical purposes but do not reflect the comprehensive teachings of Hindu scriptures²³⁰³¹.

The appropriate Hindu response to aggression is neither blanket pacifism nor mindless violence, but righteous action guided by dharma—protecting the innocent, stopping evil, and using proportionate force when peaceful means fail, all while maintaining inner equanimity and acting without selfish attachment to outcomes¹¹¹⁶¹⁴. This balanced approach recognizes both the value of life and the necessity of sometimes taking life to preserve dharma and protect the dharmic social order.

---

Reflection Questions

1. How does the complete verse "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma, Dharma Himsa Tathaiva Cha" challenge modern interpretations of Hindu non-violence? Consider situations in your own life where standing up against injustice required difficult action rather than passive acceptance.

2. What is the difference between violence motivated by anger or greed versus violence undertaken as dharmic duty? Reflect on Krishna's teaching to Arjuna about performing one's duty without attachment to outcomes.

3. How did colonial interpretations of Hindu texts serve political purposes? Think about how selective reading of any philosophy can be used to support predetermined conclusions.

4. In what ways does the concept of Kshatriya Dharma remain relevant in modern society? Consider the roles of police, military, and even everyday citizens who protect the vulnerable.

5. What does "Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah" (Dharma protects those who protect it) mean for individual responsibility? Reflect on the balance between personal safety and moral obligation to stand against injustice.

6. How can one maintain inner peace and equanimity while taking necessary action against aggression? Explore the Gita's teaching of acting without hatred even in conflict.

---

Citation References

---

Sources

This article draws from primary Hindu texts including:

• Bhagavad Gita - Chapters on Karma Yoga and Dharmic Duty
• Manusmriti - Sections on Justice and Self-Defense (8.344-351)
• Mahabharata - Complete verse on Ahimsa and Dharma
• Ramayana - Rama's encounter with Tataka and principles of righteous warfare
• Rig Veda - Ancient injunctions on protection and defense

Secondary analysis from scholars examining colonial impact on Hindu interpretation and the historical development of ahimsa as absolute pacifism in modern discourse.

The "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" Half-Truth

The phrase most commonly cited to support the pacifist interpretation is "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" (non-violence is the highest duty). However, this represents only half of the complete verse from the Mahabharata. The full phrase reads:

अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च

Ahimsa paramo dharmah, dharma himsa tathaiva cha

"Non-violence is the ultimate dharma. So too is violence in service of Dharma."

This second line, consistently omitted in popular discourse, fundamentally changes the meaning. The complete teaching establishes that while non-violence is generally preferred, violence undertaken to protect dharma (righteousness), defend the innocent, or combat evil is equally dharmic.

What Hindu Texts Actually Say About Responding to Aggression

The Manusmriti on Self-Defense

The Manusmriti, one of the most important Smriti texts, explicitly addresses the right to self-defense and response to aggressors. It identifies six types of aggressors (ātatāyī):

1. A poison giver
2. One who sets fire to another's house
3. One who attacks with deadly weapons
4. One who plunders wealth
5. One who forcibly occupies another's land
6. One who kidnaps another's wife

Manusmriti 8.350-351 states unequivocally:

"One may slay without hesitation an assassin who approaches (with murderous intent), whether (he be one's) teacher, a child or an aged man, or a Brahmana deeply versed in the Vedas. By killing an assassin the slayer incurs no guilt, whether (he does it) publicly or secretly; in that case fury recoils upon fury."

This verse makes clear that self-defense against an aggressor is not only permitted but required, regardless of the aggressor's status. The text emphasizes that killing in legitimate self-defense incurs no sin (pāpam).

Manusmriti 8.344-347 further declares:

"A king who desires to gain the throne of Indra and imperishable eternal fame, shall not, even for a moment, neglect (to punish) the man who commits violence. He who commits violence must be considered as the worst offender...But that king who pardons the perpetrator of violence quickly perishes and incurs hatred."

The Bhagavad Gita on Righteous Warfare

The Bhagavad Gita, perhaps Hinduism's most influential philosophical text, directly addresses the duty to fight against aggression and injustice. When Arjuna hesitates to fight in the Kurukshetra war, Krishna instructs him:

Bhagavad Gita 2.31-33:

"Considering your specific duty as a kshatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation. If, however, you refuse to fight this righteous war, abandoning your social duty and reputation, you will certainly incur sin."

The Gita establishes that violence performed as part of one's sacred duty (svadharma), particularly for kshatriyas (the warrior-protector class), when undertaken without selfish attachment and for the purpose of upholding dharma, is not only justified but morally required. Krishna emphasizes that the soul is eternal and indestructible, and that failing to fight against injustice when it is one's duty constitutes a greater sin than the violence of righteous warfare.

The Concept of Dharmayuddha (Righteous War)

Hindu texts extensively discuss dharmayuddha—righteous or just warfare. The principles include:

• War must be avoided through sincere dialogue and must be the last resort
• The cause must be just and the purpose virtuous—to restrain the wicked and restore peace
• It must be waged by a legitimate authority
• Even during war, there must be restraint: no attacking unarmed opponents, wounded warriors, non-combatants, women, children, or civilians
• Weapons must be proportionate to the objective

The Bhagavad Gita advocates that while violence may be necessary, it must be executed with inner restraint, without hatred or passion—maintaining calmness and peace even in the midst of battle. This nuanced approach accepts the reality of war while seeking to minimize its destructive effects.

The Ramayana on Protection and Self-Defense

The Ramayana provides numerous examples of justified violence for protection of dharma. When Rama hesitates to kill the demoness Tataka because she is female, his guru Vishwamitra instructs him that protecting the innocent from those who terrorize and kill justifies the use of lethal force, regardless of the aggressor's gender. Rama's killing of Tataka is described as uttamam—"an eminently justifiable action".

The epic emphasizes that violence undertaken for protection of the vulnerable, self-defense, and preservation of righteousness constitutes proper conduct for warriors. The text explicitly states that "all living creatures must strive to the limit of their strength to save their own lives" and that self-preservation is a valid justification for violence.

The Kshatriya Dharma: The Duty to Protect

Hindu texts consistently emphasize that the kshatriya (warrior-protector) class has a specific duty (svadharma) to protect society through the application of force when necessary. The term kshatriya itself derives from kṣat (hurt) and trāyate (to protect)—literally "one who protects from harm".

This duty includes:

• Protecting citizens from oppression and violence
• Punishing criminals and maintaining law and order
• Defending the kingdom from invaders
• Ensuring justice through proportionate use of force

To refuse this duty when faced with aggression is considered a sin—a dereliction of one's dharma. As Krishna tells Arjuna, "a warrior who becomes non-violent on the battlefield" commits adharma (unrighteousness).

Ahimsa in Context: Relative, Not Absolute

It's crucial to understand that ahimsa (non-violence) in Hindu philosophy is relative, not absolute. Unlike the English word "non-violence," which carries an absolute meaning, Hindu texts present ahimsa as contextual:

• For ascetics and renunciates (sannyasins) who have withdrawn from worldly affairs, total non-violence is the ideal
• For householders (gṛhasthas) and those engaged in protecting society, ahimsa must be balanced with the duty to protect dharma
• Violence to stop greater violence can itself be considered ahimsa

The Mahabharata states this explicitly: "Abstention from cruelty is the highest Religion...but violence in service of Dharma is equally supreme". This means that allowing evil to flourish through inaction is a greater violation of ahimsa than using necessary force to stop it.

Colonial and Gandhian Influences on the Pacifist Misconception

The interpretation of Hinduism as fundamentally pacifist gained prominence through several historical factors:

Colonial Manipulation

British colonial administrators and scholars selectively translated and interpreted Hindu texts to present Hinduism as passive and fatalistic, which served colonial interests by discouraging armed resistance. They emphasized ahimsa while de-emphasizing the extensive martial traditions and righteous warfare concepts in Hindu texts. Max Müller and other colonial-era translators admitted to interpreting scriptures "with a colonial mindset".

Gandhi's Reinterpretation

Mahatma Gandhi popularized the incomplete "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma" phrase and applied ahimsa as an absolute political principle rather than the contextual ethical concept found in Hindu texts. While Gandhi referenced the Bhagavad Gita as his spiritual guide, he "chose to emphasize the aspects...that supported his views on non-violence, sidestepping its calls to arms". Critics argue that his interpretation of ahimsa diverged significantly from traditional Hindu teachings, which explicitly sanction righteous warfare.

Loss of Martial Context

Before colonial rule, India had extensive martial traditions and sophisticated military systems. The British systematically suppressed indigenous military culture and reinterpreted Hindu texts to serve their "divide and rule" strategy. Post-independence education systems continued teaching these colonial interpretations, perpetuating the pacifist misconception.

The Appropriate Response to Aggression According to Hindu Texts

Hindu scriptures provide clear guidance on responding to aggressors:

1. Self-defense is an absolute right: One may defend oneself, one's family, property, and dharma without hesitation, even if it requires killing the aggressor

2. Protection of the innocent is a sacred duty: Those with the capacity and responsibility to protect (especially kshatriyas) must intervene against aggressors to prevent harm to the defenseless

3. Violence must be proportionate and restrained: Even justified violence should be the minimum necessary to neutralize the threat, executed without hatred or passion

4. Diplomacy first, force last: All peaceful means must be exhausted before resorting to violence. The Mahabharata shows the Pandavas attempting peace repeatedly before accepting war as unavoidable

5. No mercy for unrepentant aggressors: Those who persistently commit atrocities and refuse to reform must be stopped through force

6. Dharma is paramount: The ultimate criterion is whether action upholds or violates dharma. Inaction in the face of evil constitutes adharma

The principle is succinctly captured in the Manu-Samhita's declaration: "Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah"—"Dharma protects those who protect it". This establishes a reciprocal obligation: if one fails to defend dharma when it is threatened, one cannot expect dharma to protect them.

Conclusion

Far from being a religion of absolute pacifism, Hindu texts present a sophisticated ethical framework that distinguishes between violence born of anger, hatred, or greed (which is condemned) and violence undertaken as a last resort to protect dharma, defend the innocent, and stop aggressors (which is prescribed). The modern misconception of Hinduism as purely non-violent stems largely from incomplete quotations, colonial reinterpretation, and political movements that served specific historical purposes but do not reflect the comprehensive teachings of Hindu scriptures.

The appropriate Hindu response to aggression is neither blanket pacifism nor mindless violence, but righteous action guided by dharma—protecting the innocent, stopping evil, and using proportionate force when peaceful means fail, all while maintaining inner equanimity and acting without selfish attachment to outcomes. This balanced approach recognizes both the value of life and the necessity of sometimes taking life to preserve dharma and protect the dharmic social order.

---

Reflection Questions

1. How does the complete verse "Ahimsa Paramo Dharma, Dharma Himsa Tathaiva Cha" challenge modern interpretations of Hindu non-violence? Consider situations in your own life where standing up against injustice required difficult action rather than passive acceptance.

2. What is the difference between violence motivated by anger or greed versus violence undertaken as dharmic duty? Reflect on Krishna's teaching to Arjuna about performing one's duty without attachment to outcomes.

3. How did colonial interpretations of Hindu texts serve political purposes? Think about how selective reading of any philosophy can be used to support predetermined conclusions.

4. In what ways does the concept of Kshatriya Dharma remain relevant in modern society? Consider the roles of police, military, and even everyday citizens who protect the vulnerable.

5. What does "Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah" (Dharma protects those who protect it) mean for individual responsibility? Reflect on the balance between personal safety and moral obligation to stand against injustice.

6. How can one maintain inner peace and equanimity while taking necessary action against aggression? Explore the Gita's teaching of acting without hatred even in conflict.

---

Sources

This article draws from primary Hindu texts including:

• Bhagavad Gita - Chapters on Karma Yoga and Dharmic Duty
• Manusmriti - Sections on Justice and Self-Defense (8.344-351)
• Mahabharata - Complete verse on Ahimsa and Dharma
• Ramayana - Rama's encounter with Tataka and principles of righteous warfare
• Rig Veda - Ancient injunctions on protection and defense

Secondary analysis from scholars examining colonial impact on Hindu interpretation and the historical development of ahimsa as absolute pacifism in modern discourse.

Footnotes

1. Cambridge University Press - Unravelling the Myth of Gandhian Nonviolence ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. Hindu Infopedia - Mahatma Gandhi and His Principles Analyzed ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

3. Hindupedia - Ahimsa Paramo Dharma ↩ ↩² ↩³

4. Vedic Tribe - Ahimsa Paramo Dharma: Gandhi's Half Truth ↩

5. Sanskriti Magazine - Ahimsa Paramo Dharma: Half Truth ↩

6. Stop Hindu Dvesha - Defending Dharma: Lessons from Our Shastras ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

7. Hindu Existence - Ahimsa: Non-Violence in Hinduism ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

8. India Spirituality - Manu Smriti on Offences and Punishments ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

9. VaniQuotes - Killing Aggressors ↩ ↩²

10. Wisdom Library - Manusmriti 8.350-351 ↩ ↩² ↩³

11. Wisdom Short - Bhagavad Gita on Violence ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

12. Hare Krishna Movement - Fighting on Religious Principles ↩ ↩²

13. Holy Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 2, Verse 33 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

14. ICRC - Bhagavad Gita and Ethics of War ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

15. Gita Daily - Gita 2.31 Explained ↩ ↩²

16. Gold Coast Hindu - Dharma Yuddha: What is Correct Warfare ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

17. Wikipedia - Dharma-yuddha ↩ ↩²

18. Wikipedia - Ahimsa ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

19. International Review - Hinduism's Rules of Armed Conflict ↩

20. Walter Dorn - Ramayana and Just War ↩

21. Hindu Karma - Rama's Battle Against Tataka ↩

22. Wikipedia - Tataka ↩

23. Academia - Violence in the Valmiki Ramayana: Just War Criteria ↩

24. BBC Bitesize - Kshatriya Duties ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

25. BBC Bitesize - Kshatriya Revision ↩

26. VaniQuotes - Duties of the Kshatriya ↩ ↩² ↩³

27. PP Arihar - Non-Violence in Sanatan Dharma ↩ ↩² ↩³

28. Hindunet - Ahimsa Discussion ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

29. Fiveable - Impact of Colonialism on Hinduism ↩ ↩² ↩³

30. Priya's Blog - Colonial Confinement of Hinduism ↩ ↩²

31. Adikka Channels - How British Manipulated Hindu Scriptures ↩ ↩² ↩³

32. Herald UoHyd - Elusive Nonviolence: Gandhi's Religion of Ahimsa ↩

33. World History Encyclopedia - Indian Warfare ↩

34. EBSCO - Ancient Indian and South Asian Warfare ↩

35. Hindu Post - Self-Defense in Vedic Dharma ↩

36. CIRIS - Principles of Self-Defence ↩

37. BTG Krishna - Is the Gita a Book of Violence? ↩

38. Sparikh - Balance of Dharma ↩