Answer
The example of Srimad Bhagavatam clearly shows, through the actions of King Prithu Maharaj, that dealing firmly with aggressors is fully justified. Is there really any doubt that aggressors — and at times even those actively supporting such aggression — must be stopped, even through force if necessary?
In some situations, there may be subtle ethical questions about whether a particular act of killing is truly dharmic or not. Fine distinctions can exist. But in a case involving the brutal and deliberate killing of innocent civilians, such doubt hardly arises at all. The obligation to retaliate and protect society becomes self-evident. From a Dharmic perspective, India taking action against such aggression is fully justified.
That is precisely what we repeatedly see in the scriptures: violence has a proper place when it is exercised in the service of justice and protection of the innocent. Once a ruler or government determines that it is their duty to act, the next step is not emotional reaction, but intelligent execution. Every king in history strategized warfare carefully because war itself is a serious responsibility.
So the principle may be clear, but its execution requires wisdom, timing, and strategic calculation. Decisions cannot be made impulsively. One cannot simply ask, “Why not attack immediately?” Strategic considerations, consequences, preparedness, and long-term outcomes all have to be carefully evaluated.
A responsible government must act with both firmness and intelligence. As long as the spirit is rooted in protecting citizens and responding to aggression, righteous anger against aggressors is not condemned — it is recognized as justified and appropriate within Dharma.
