Why religion is basic concept in wars? Is it any way justified? Is it better for any side? Does it lead to any benefit for any other party other than the ones fighting? Know what and why here.

Religious wars: How justified are they?

Throughout human history, religion has been a powerful force shaping civilizations, cultures and conflicts. While it has inspired acts of charity, peace and moral guidance, it has also been used to justify some of the bloodiest wars in human history and has been used as a tool of violence, hatred and war. 

Now the basic question that arises is are these religious wars ever justified? This could only be answered if we better understand the concept of religious wars, their historical and contemporary relevance and whether they can ever be morally or ethically justified and especially in the context of India’s complex socio- religious  landscape.

What are Religious Wars?

A religious war or a war of religion which is sometimes also known as a holy war is a war and conflict which is primarily caused or justified by differences in religion and beliefs. These may be fought to spread a religion , to defend a religious group’s rights or practices, or to eliminate perceived threats to a particular faith. While religion might not always be the sole cause, it is often used as a tool to mobilize support, mark identities, and legitimize violence.

If we particularly talk about India which is a birthplace of many religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism has long been home to an extraordinary mosaic of faiths. Historically many religions coexisted peacefully. But there have also been painful periods of religious strife, some of which were devastating.

When Islamic rulers began invading and settling in India from the 11th century onwards, several regions saw temple destructions, forced conversions, and wars in the name of faith. The Delhi Sultanate and later the Mughal Empire had both tolerant and intolerant rulers with Akbar’s secularism standing in contrast to Auranzeb’s orthodoxy. Though political power was the primary goal, religion was often used to justify war, persecution, and domination.

Further the partition of India in 1947 also acted as a religious divide. A political decision based on religious identity creating Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims led to the killing of over a million people and the displacement of nearly 15 million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. It was not a war in the conventional sense, but it was a communal catastrophe rooted in religion.

In today’s time also India continues to witness communal riots, lynchings, mob violence under religious pretexts. Events like the Babri Masjid demolition (1992) and the Godhra- Gujarat riots (2002) show that religion, when politicized, can still become a tool for inciting violence.

Are religious wars ever justified?

This is where it becomes both a moral and philosophical question and it has two schools of thoughts, some argue that if a religious group is being persecuted or threatened, violence in self- defense can be justified. For instance, Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh Guru, took up arms not to spread religion, but to defend the Sikh community and Hindu population against Mughal oppression. Defensive religious wars, therefore, may carry moral weight as they aim to protect freedom of worship, not enforce it.

Whereas, another school thought states that most “religious” wars are driven by political or economic motives rather than spiritual ones. The Crusades, for instance, were as much about territorial control as they were about Christianity. Innocent lives are lost in the name of religion, contradicting the core teachings of compassion found in all major faiths. Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of ahimsa (non- violence) rejects war as a means of resolving religious disputes.

Further, in Hinduism it is believed that war is undesirable and avoidable because it involves killing fellow humans. However, it recognizes that there can be situations when waging war is a better path than tolerating evil. Does that mean Hinduism glorifies war? The very fact that the backdrop of the Gita, which Hindus consider sacrosanct, is the battlefield, and its main protagonist a warrior, may lead many to believe that Hinduism supports the act of war. In fact, the Gita neither sanctions war nor condemns it.

The story of Arjuna, the fabled bowman of the Mahabharata, brings out Lord Krishna’s view of war in the Gita. The great battle of Kurukshetra is about to begin. Krishna drives Arjuna’s chariot drawn by white horses into the centre of the battlefield between two armies. This is when Arjuna realizes that many of his kinsmen and old friends are among the ranks of the enemy, and is appalled by the fact that he is about to kill those he loves. He is unable to stand there any longer, refuses to fight and says that he does not “desire any subsequent victory, kingdom, or happiness”. 

Arjuna questions, “How could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?” Krishna in order to persuade him to fight, reminds him that there is no such act as killing. He explains that the “atman” or soul is only reality; the body is simply an appearance, its existence and annihilation are illusory. And for Arjuna, a member of the “Kshatriya” or the warrior caste, fighting the battle is ‘righteous’. It is a just cause and to defend it is his duty or dharma.

Unlike modern religious wars like Crusades, Jihad etc., the Mahabharata war was not fought over theological differences but over dharma (righteous governance). However, Krishna’s involvement and the Gita’s teachings give it a spiritual dimension. 

Therefore, the Mahabharata does not glorify war but presents it as a tragic necessity when adharma prevails. Krishna’s teachings suggest that war can be justified only if it is fought for righteousness and not hatred, all peaceful means are exhausted and ethical rules are followed.

In today’s world, where religion is often misused for violence, the Mahabharata reminds us that true dharma is about justice, not vengeance. A war fought without these principles is not a Dharma Yuddha but mere bloodshed in God’s name. Perhaps the greatest lesson is that no war whether religious or otherwise can be justified unless it serves a higher good beyond mere victory.

Therefore, at last but not the least, Religious wars are rarely, if ever, purely about faith. They are often entangled with power, territory, and identity politics. While self-defense and resistance to oppression can provide some moral justification, history shows that most religious conflicts lead to unnecessary suffering. 

In India, where multiple religions coexist, the solution lies not in justifying wars but in fostering harmony. As Swami Vivekananda said, "All religions are paths to the same truth." True spirituality seeks unity, not division and peace, not war. If religion is meant to guide humanity toward righteousness, then its misuse for violence is a betrayal of its very essence. The justification of religious wars, therefore, remains a paradox and one that can only be resolved when faith transcends conflict and embraces universal brotherhood.

This article is written by our exceptionally talented Content Strategist and Writer, Nikita.

 

If there is anything you believe you want to add to this, do connect with us at wa.me/918542929702 or info@rudrakshahub.com and we shall be happy to accomodate the same as per possibility. Until then, keep worshipping with Rudraksha Hub..!!

Tags

are wars on religion justified faith faith vs religion religion religion vs faith religion wars Religions

• Share on:
• WhatsApp
• Deel
• X
• Pin it
• Messenger
• Email

---