An attack made in defence is a valid attack.

A question, what will you do if someone snatches your valuable belongings? Or what will you do if someone is trying to thrash you, or humiliate you publicly?

If your answer is that you will stay calm and call the police to resolve the matter, then you are the most tolerant in the world. I mean that’s what one should do.

If your answer is, to attack in the same way they did to you, that is your right. However, most laws do not allow you to take the law in hand to punish anyone. They ask you to complain to the police and law and then wait for justice. This may take years to resolve, whatever may be the reason.

Now think, if the same questions are for your country, what will a country do, if someone tries to snatch the territory of that country? What if some countries try to humiliate you on international platforms? The Country has the full right to respond to such attacks. They will attack, either in a similar way or in different other pinching ways. An attack made in defence is a valid attack.

If the country is not responding, that means

1. They admit allegations
2. They are incapable of responding
3. Afraid of more attacks
4. Afraid of civil war
5. There’s some Obligation
6. Afraid of economic and other types of sanctions

Let me know in the comment section below if I have missed any reasons.

1) Definitions of Attack and Defence

To understand this topic, we will first understand the definitions of ‘Attack’ and ‘Defence’. Once we grasp this, it will be good to understand the full context of this topic ‘An attack made in defence is a valid attack’.

The definitions below are not from any reputed dictionary. This is the meaning I discovered by looking at the depth of these words. These may be a little immature but enough to understand our topic.

Attack – A willful act intending to harm the dignity, sovereignty, chastity (of humans), purity (of things related to religion), innocence, demoralisation, or reputation, OR, to make losses to others, OR, to harm religious faith/belief/devotion, OR, to disarm, to create propaganda OR, to provoke the opposite person/country/organisation/charitable trust/NGO (Non-Gaining Organisations) etc. which will turn into arguments, fights, riots or war AND such willful acts involve arguments, writings, bullying with or without weapons, kidnapping, hostage, killing, crippling or incapacitating, neutralising, hurting with or without arms and ammunitions, fighting physically etc. AND such a list of willful acts and channels is not exhaustive AND such attack may be internal or external.

Defence – A willful OR forceful act intending to counter, neutralise or demoralise the attacks made or planned to be made or anticipated or showcased to threaten OR to save the dignity, sovereignty, chastity (of humans), purity (of things related to religion), innocence, or reputation, OR, losses, OR, religious faith/belief/devotion, OR, eliminate or neutralise propaganda, provoking acts of the opposite person/country/organisation/charitable trust/NGO (Non-Gaining Organisations) etc. AND such willful or forceful acts and channels listed are not exhaustive.

2) Explanation of the definitions

Looking at the definitions, we can comment on the following

1. Attack is wilful but defence is either wilful or forceful. One is action and another is reaction.
2. Defence is either wilful or forceful; meaning, it is the party on whom the attack is made, decides whether to respond or not. For example, if any country comments on another country’s internal matters, that other country may comment or choose to remain silent. Another example is when India’s PM was Dr Manmohan Singh, and the 26/11 attack happened in the financial capital of India i.e. Mumbai; India should have retaliated against Pakistan, but the cowardly PM chose to remain silent.
3. Even if the attacks are internal but harm the dignity of people of a particular religion, race, ethnicity, or gender etc, that may be treated as an attack. For example, before the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, East Pakistani soldiers carried out mass rape campaigns to alter the demography of the region. Also, Pakistan attacked non-Islamic religions either to force them to convert or to throw them out of the country and/or to kill men and use women as sex slaves.  Now prima facia that was an internal matter of East Pakistan, but largely affected the East side of India. Migrants stranded over borders for weeks, and few successfully entered. Women completely lost their independence and dignity due to being confined to rape camps. 400K to 500K rapes happened. More than 25000 children were born after the war, due to rapes. Pakistani soldiers kept women naked throughout their pregnancy and delivery cycle so that they would not end their lives using their clothes. How can a neighbouring country knowingly be silent? Finally, India looked at the opportunity when Pakistan attacked India and India retaliated very hard, that Pakistan lost half of its territory. Women safeguarded. India returned dignity and freedom to women and lives to men. Slavery ended.  
4. Definition suggests another definition of person in it. As per law ‘Person’ is any living or dead person or an artificial person created by law that has separate legal existence. Such as an organisation, NGO, school, college or university, charitable trust, country etc having a common seal, perpetual succession and an authorised signatory.
5. The list of a person is not exhaustive but inclusive, simply because the list is long and only a few are added as an illustration.
6. Also, the list of attacks is not exhaustive but inclusive because various types of attacks exist in the world. It is practically impossible to add them all to the definition. So, the definition includes a few important attacks.
7. Any action or reaction taken to counter the attacks, be it internal or external, is called as a defence.

3) Defence is a valid and legal attack –

Please note an important point, if the fights are within the country’s own ‘persons’, their attack in defence is a little tricky to understand. I will leave it to the laws of that country. I neither support nor recommend any ‘attack’ or ‘attack in defence’.

We will speak about international politics.

1. A country has full right to retaliate to the ‘attacks’ on it.

That country may take action as deemed fit for them. Every country must respect the sovereignty of other countries. Even if country ‘A’ is not involved in any fight with another country ‘B’ but finds that country or countrymen (including all genders) are doing something tragic within or outside of that country, then country ‘A’ can comment on it or take necessary actions against it.

1. For example, Iran is constantly taking provocative actions, that are not as per international law. Many times, its acts are based on religion; even if they are killing other religions or independence or harming the Middle East region; the USA and many other countries have put stringent sanctions on it. In this example, Iran is not directly taking any action against the USA, but still, the USA retaliates in its ways.
2. Bangladesh Liberation War is another example, where the matter was internal but brutal to human. India treated it very well.

2. What if you are president of the country and another country attacks your country?

I am sure, you will cut off all trades, counterattack or defend your territory, take the help of your friendly country, kill the top officers of that country if you have the guts to do that, and hide yourself from any attack on you. Once the war ends, you will start rebuilding the country and its morale. You will bring more advanced defence systems, advanced fighter jets, and missiles, and recruit more in the army, navy and air force.

All this is understood. Then how can we say, we cannot defend ourselves? If we can’t say so, then it is proved that an attack in defence is valid.

Such an attack is to defend territories, businesses, the corporate world, energy generating units, civilians, women and the whole country’s dignity and sovereignty.

4) Two sides of the coins

There are two sides to the coin ‘attack’ and ‘attack in defence’. The two sides are – 1) one group of countries may feel the attack is valid, and 2) another group may condemn it commenting the attack is not valid.

Who is right?

The answer is given in an ancient mythological story called ‘Mahabharat’ in which real god Shri Hari Vishnu’s incarnation (Avatar) as Lord Shri Krishna has advised all human beings on the earth.

Nearly 5000 plus years B.C. an advanced civilisation existed. The entire world had only one religion ‘Sanatan’ which is also called ‘Hindus’ now. Just like a world war in modern times, the biggest war happened between one family. Cousins’ v/s cousins. Kauravas v/s Pandavas. In that war, Lord Shri Krishna advised about which act is treated as valid and justified even if it is destructive.

Lord Shri Krishna spoke to his favourite devotee ‘Arjun’. Later the same was mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. This book is readily available anywhere in the world. This is not a religious book but it teaches us the way to live life, the way to come closer to God, the way to reduce the effects of your ‘Karma’. ‘Karma’ means the good, bad, meaningful, meaningless, unnecessary, important, knowingly unknowingly things you do throughout your life.

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥

Pronunciation in English

Karmanye vadhika raste, Ma phaleshu kadachana
Ma karma phala he tur bhuh, ma te sangotsva karmani

The meaning of the verse in English –

You have the right to work only but never to its fruits.
Let not the fruits of action be your motive, nor let your attachment be to inaction.

ब्रह्मण्याधाय कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा करोति य: ।
लिप्यते न स पापेन पद्मपत्रमिवाम्भसा ॥

Pronunciation in English

brahmaṇy ādhāya karmāṇi
saṅgaṁ tyaktvā karoti yaḥ
lipyate na sa pāpena
padma-patram ivāmbhasā

The meaning of the verse in English –

One who performs his duty without attachment, surrendering the results unto the Supreme Lord, is unaffected by sinful action, as the lotus leaf is untouched by water.

श्रेयान् स्वधर्मो विगुणः परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात्।

स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेयः परधर्मो भयावहः॥

Pronunciation in English

śhreyān swa-dharmo viguṇaḥ para-dharmāt sv-anuṣhṭhitāt

swa-dharme nidhanaṁ śhreyaḥ para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ

The meaning of the verse in English –

While fulfilling one’s responsibilities offers satisfaction and fulfilment, fulfilling someone else’s might cause anxiety and unease. As such, individuals must concentrate on fulfilling their dharma, which is their innate responsibility or life’s mission, to the best of their abilities.

“धर्म युक्त कर्म” means deeds that are in accordance with dharma, or a moral code of living.

Most of our work has a selfish Motive, i.e., to earn some fruit. Doing the work is in our hands, but not its fruits. So, it becomes useless to keep an intention of fruits. If your intensions are good anyways you are doing good job, why will you worry; if you are doing bad things and you know you will be worried at some point of time, why would you do that?

Well, I hope you like this blog; if you do, please like and share the same. Please also leave your comment in the comment section below.