Arise Bharat

Author : Lt Col Ajay Kumar (retd)

When Silence Becomes Surrender: Understanding the Imperative of Armed Response Against Pakistan’s Enduring Hostility

The War We Didn’t Choose—but Can No Longer Avoid

Bharat did not choose this war. Like every war before—1947, 1965, 1971, 1999—it has been thrust upon us. This time, it began with the butchery in Pahalgam, where 26 unarmed tourists were slaughtered after segregating them based on their religious identity in a premeditated act of jihadist terror by Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives trained, equipped, and launched by Pakistan.

To call this a reactionary war is a lie. This is a response long overdue. This is not militarism. This is the defence of Dharma.

Let there be no confusion: Pakistan’s hatred of Bharat is not circumstantial. It is existential. It is not political. It is civilizational. From the calls for Partition to the genocide of Hindus during Direct Action Day in 1946 to the attacks of Pulwama and now Pahalgam, Pakistan’s very reason for existence has been the negation of Bharat and annihilation of the Hindu identity.

Pakistan doesn’t hide it anymore. Its army chief, General Asim Munir, declared in April 2025 that “jihad” is the Pakistani Army’s spiritual backbone. He swore to “liberate” Kashmir not through diplomacy, but through religious war.

Let’s be clear: this is not geopolitics. This is a holy war declared by one state against the soul of another.

The Calculus of Carnage: Quantifying the Cost of Unchecked Malevolence

Born in Blood: The Anti-Hindu Genesis of Pakistan

Jinnah’s Direct Action Day in 1946 saw over 4,000 Hindus massacred in Calcutta. This was the rehearsal. What followed was a long, unbroken trail of betrayal, each time Bharat extended the hand of peace:

• 1947: While Bharat was still reeling from Partition, Pakistan invaded Kashmir.
• 1965: Bharat offered peace at Tashkent. Pakistan responded with tanks.
• 1971: Even after Pakistan surrendered, Bharat returned 95,000 POWs. Pakistan responded with Kargil.
• 1999 to Present: Every Prime Minister—from Vajpayee to Modi—has tried dialogue. Every time, Bharat received only body bags in return.

Terror by the Numbers: What Has Pakistan’s Proxy War Cost Bharat?

• Since 1989, over 45,000 lives have been lost to cross-border terrorism.
• 14,000+ Indian security personnel killed.
• 23,000+ civilians murdered.
• More than 300 major terror attacks have been traced to Pakistan-based groups.

These are not statistics. They are families shattered. Sons buried. Dreams extinguished. And all while the architects of terror—Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar—roam freely in Pakistan, praised as “freedom fighters.”

The Paradox of Power: Interpreting Democratic Mandate Through a Lens of Enmity

The democratic ascent of a political entity with Hindu roots in 2014, a testament to the will of Bharat’s majority, has been perversely interpreted and exploited by certain elements within Pakistan. This internal political development has been twisted into a justification for their pre-existing animosity, fueling a narrative of perceived threat and marginalization. The rhetoric of Hindu supremacy, often amplified and distorted, serves as a convenient pretext to perpetuate a cycle of aggression and to obstruct any genuine attempt at reconciliation based on mutual respect and sovereign equality.

It is particularly poignant to recall that some of the very voices now advocating for #NoWar were critical of Prime Minister Modi’s impromptu visit to Pakistan to attend the family wedding of the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. That gesture, far from being a casual social call, was a deliberate, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to extend a hand of friendship, a sincere effort to bridge the chasm of mistrust. The criticism levelled against this act of goodwill underscores the deeply entrenched scepticism and perhaps even a refusal to acknowledge any attempt at reconciliation with Pakistan. The Gesture was not for eating biryani, it was for peace.

 The Echoes of Kurukshetra: Finding Dharma in the Crucible of Conflict

When Arjuna stood on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, his heart trembled. He saw his own kin on the other side. He contemplated turning back. Krishna said to him:

“klaibyam mā sma gamaḥ pārtha, naitat tvayy upapadyate,
kṣudraṁ hṛdaya-daurbalyaṁ, tyaktvottiṣṭha paraṁ-tapa.” (Gita 2.3)

“Do not yield to this impotence, O Partha. It does not befit you. Abandon this petty weakness of heart and arise, O scorcher of enemies.”

Lord Krishna’s teachings illuminate a higher imperative – the upholding of Dharma, the steadfast resistance against injustice, even when the path is fraught with suffering and moral complexity.

“धर्म्याद्धि युद्धाच्छ्रेयोऽन्यत्क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते | यदृच्छया चोपपन्नं स्वर्गद्वारमपावृतम् ||” (Bhagavad Gita, 2.31-32)

“For a warrior, there is no duty superior to a righteous war. Happy are the warriors, O Partha, to whom such a war comes of its own accord, opening the gates of heaven.”

Krishna’s counsel is not a call for reckless aggression but a recognition that inaction in the face of अधर्म (adharma) can be the gravest dereliction of duty. This present conflict is not about territorial expansion or the pursuit of vengeance; it is a necessary defense of the fundamental values that define Bharat – its pluralism, its commitment to justice, and its right to exist in peace and security.

The Weight of Inaction: Trading Transient Harmony for Enduring Existential Threat

The calculus of war is undeniably grim. The tragic loss of lives on all sides, the crippling economic repercussions, and the societal fissures are realities that no nation embraces without profound sorrow. Yet, the calculus of silence in the face of relentless terror and a persistent existential threat is far more devastating. It is the forfeiture of our security, the erosion of our sovereignty, and a profound betrayal of those who have already made the ultimate sacrifice for our safety. To choose inaction is to embolden the aggressor, to perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence, and ultimately to compromise the very essence of Bharat.

Even the embodiment of righteousness, Maryada Purushottam Rama, was compelled to wield arms against Ravana when all avenues of peaceful resolution were exhausted. While Ravana, in his villainy, adhered to certain ethical boundaries, the same cannot be said of elements within Pakistan, particularly its military establishment and the extremist ideologies they often propagate. The explicit pronouncements of figures like Mullah Munir, the Chief of the Pakistani Army, leave no room for ambiguity – their hostility towards Hindus and Bharat appears deeply rooted in a distorted religious narrative, fostering a dangerous and uncompromising antagonism.  

Appeasement Is Not Peace: History’s Brutal Lesson

In 1938, Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich and declared “peace in our time” after giving away Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Within one year, the world was plunged into World War II.

You cannot negotiate with an ideology that thrives on your extinction. You cannot make peace with someone who sees your restraint as weakness.

Pakistan has proved, time and again, that it only understands strength.

And Bharat has finally decided: Enough.

This Is Not Jingoism. This Is Civilizational Self-Defense

Those crying “no war” #Saynotowar speak from a place of detachment. They do not count the coffins. They do not wipe the blood from temple steps. They do not hear the wails of the widowed or the orphaned. Jingoism is war for pride. This is war for survival.

This is not about occupying Lahore. This is about defending Pahalgam. This is not about erasing Pakistan. This is about protecting Bharat.

This war is against the regime of deceit, terror, and religious fanaticism that governs them. A regime that treats jihad as foreign policy and blasphemy laws as national pride.

This war is not driven by rage. It is born out of responsibility. The duty to protect one’s people. To guard one’s Dharma. To uphold satya in the face of adharma.

And in that sacred fight, every soldier who lifts his weapon is Arjuna. Every citizen who supports him is Krishna’s witness.