The Perils of Excess Virtue

While India’s civilisational ideals of restraint and magnanimity are admirable, they must be tempered by strategic realism in a harsher world.

Humanity may have emerged from the trauma of the pandemic, but peace has proved far more elusive. The early 2020s, rather than ushering in a calmer international order, have been marked by a steady accumulation of wars and geopolitical tensions. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 set the tone. Tensions between China and Taiwan have intensified steadily since the visit of America’s House Speaker to Taipei later that year. Israel’s war in Gaza, triggered by the brutal attacks of October 2023, continues to reverberate across the Middle East. The clash between Israel and Iran in 2025, fighting between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the latest joint American-Israeli military action against Iran all underline the same point: the international system is once again comfortable with the language of force.

Even actions that fall short of formal warfare reveal the same tendency. America’s dramatic ‘surgical extraction’ of Venezuela’s president earlier this year demonstrated Washington’s willingness to assert power in defence of its interests. Meanwhile, suggestions from American political circles about acquiring Greenland or absorbing Canada illustrate a global climate in which territorial ambition is discussed with surprising openness. Russia’s war in Ukraine was justified in Moscow as a pre-emptive move against NATO expansion. China’s increasingly aggressive posture toward Taiwan stems from its uncompromising ‘One China’ doctrine. Israel’s wars, whether against Hamas in Gaza or in confrontation with Iran, are rooted in existential security concerns and a deep-seated inability of rival sides to coexist peacefully. America’s actions in Venezuela were justified in terms of the perceived threat of narco-terrorism.

India has faced many of the same provocations. It has endured decades of state-sponsored cross-border terrorism, persistent border disputes, and a dangerous neighbourhood marked by nuclear proliferation and strategic instability. The Indian Parliament has even articulated a territorial vision of ‘Akhand Bharat’ that in principle echoes the territorial claims made by other powers. Yet India’s response has historically been far more restrained than that of most major states.

Civilizational Ethos

Part of the explanation lies in India’s civilisational ethos. The country’s political culture is deeply shaped by traditions that value coexistence over dominance, reconciliation over confrontation and restraint over aggression. These values are woven into the narratives that Indians have inherited from their epics and legends. In the Mahabharata, the warrior Karna is said to have refrained from firing a decisive arrow because doing so would have violated the rules of combat. In the Ramayana, Prince Rama relinquishes the throne and embraces exile in order to honour his father’s promise. The legendary King Harishchandra sacrifices his kingdom to keep a vow made even in a dream. Such stories celebrate fidelity to principle above expediency.

The broader moral vocabulary of Indian civilisation reflects the same spirit. The phrase vasudhaiva kutumbakam (“the world is one family”) captures a cosmopolitan vision that prizes harmony among nations. The injunction atithi devo bhava (“the guest is like God”) expresses a tradition of hospitality that has long been associated with India’s social life. These ideals have contributed to a national temperament that often prefers patience to confrontation.

But virtues, like all good things, can be taken to excess. Western societies, for instance, revere religious traditions that extol forgiveness and compassion even toward enemies. Yet the same states have historically shown little hesitation in acting decisively when their strategic interests are threatened.

India, by contrast, sometimes appears to take its ideals more literally than its rivals do theirs. The country’s instinct for moral consistency can lead to a reluctance to act forcefully even when circumstances might justify it.

No Strategic Dividends

Other nations have learned to exploit this trait. Praise for India’s civilisational virtues, its hospitality, tolerance and generosity often come easily from abroad. Such compliments reinforce the expectation that India will behave magnanimously even when doing so offers little tangible benefit. The aftermath of the 1971 war offers a classic example. India released thousands of captured Pakistani soldiers and accepted a diplomatic settlement that many observers later judged overly generous. The gesture earned widespread admiration for India’s statesmanship but carried few lasting strategic dividends.

The same asymmetry is visible in everyday diplomacy. Indians are quick to respect local customs and sensibilities when they travel abroad. Yet visitors to India are rarely expected to reciprocate with the same sensitivity. In this sense, admirable traits can subtly morph into weaknesses and generosity into naivety.

The pattern also shapes domestic debates about foreign policy. When India purchases Russian oil despite Western sanctions, or when it chooses a pragmatic stance in regional disputes, critics sometimes accuse the government of abandoning principle. Such criticisms assume that international politics is a realm where moral clarity should always trump strategic calculation. Yet when India itself suffers terrorist attacks or security threats, the response from the wider world is often far more cautious. Responsibility is rarely assigned directly. Calls for ‘evidence’ and ‘impartial investigation’ proliferate.

There is an irony in all this. The epics that form the moral backbone of Indian civilisation are not merely tales of virtue; they are also chronicles of war and strategy. The Mahabharata, after all, revolves around a colossal conflict fought in defence of justice. Within its pages one finds not only ideals of fairness but also episodes of tactical ambiguity and calculated deception deployed for a larger cause.

The lesson is not that India should abandon its civilisational ethos. On the contrary, those ideals remain a powerful source of moral authority and cultural cohesion. But they must be interpreted with a measure of strategic realism. After all, a world increasingly defined by geopolitical rivalry offers little reward for excessive idealism.

(The writer works in the Information Technology sector. Views personal.)