Speaking as the yajman or chief patron of a religious ritual at the second anniversary of the consecration of the Ayodhya temple, India’s defence minister, Rajnath Singh, said, “Ram is humble. Ram is virtuous. Ram is compassionate. But where necessity arises… Ramji takes on the role of vanquishing the wicked there as well. During Operation Sindoor, we worked under that same inspiration of Lord Ram.”While it was unsurprising that the defence minister and his Cabinet Committee on Security colleagues drew on their shared cultural wellspring during Operation Sindoor, Singh was present at the consecration ceremony as Raksha Mantri.There, he prayed, “May this flag of Sanatana Dharma continue to fly as long as the sun and the moon endure. May Lord Ram guide us all on the path of duty.” This is a natural corollary to the cultural nationalism that Singh subscribes to, which he explained as follows:No social movement is born suddenly, from zero. It emerges from the consciousness of society, grows within society and takes shape while changing itself according to the changes in society. And when the movement progresses, it determines the direction of society. The temple construction movement has also been such a movement, which not only shook history but also gave direction to the present and laid the foundation for the future.There are three fundamental problems with this formulation. One is the proximity of state and religion it betrays; the second is the partisan role of the state in the contested space of religion in a diverse society; and the third is the anachronistic uptick in religiosity in public life whose bedrock ought to be rationality and modernity.When humility, virtuousness and compassion are notably absent from a regime’s repertoire, its claims of divine inspiration cannot be taken at face value. What this is is appropriation by political Hinduism – cultural nationalism – geared to legitimise a turn to bellicose strategic doctrine. The changed visual depiction of Lord Ram – after the makeover of widely-loved Lord Hanuman – presaged this. As for the ‘movement’ Singh refers to, it stands forever tainted by the demolition of a mosque and the judicial sleight of hand that handed over the proceeds of its handiwork. Whether such a murky beginning can – or should – secure the future direction of society is debatable.Rajnath Singh holds the belief that “Lord Ram is not merely an embodiment in stone, wood or soil, he is the centre of our culture and faith.” To him, “Lord Ram is our identity as well as that of our country.” The primacy of religion as identity carries significance for the ongoing reshaping of Indian strategic culture. Given the stranglehold the regime has acquired over all institutions, not least over those in the national security domain, including, lately, the military itself, the regime cannot but be expected to pitch for the strategic culture to evolve in a certain direction. Hardly organic, the illegitimacy of this impulse must not be missed.Strategic theory visualises three hierarchical platters in strategic discourse. The uppermost platter is somewhat amorphous, comprising the national ethic or ideology that informs strategic doctrine or the approach towards the use of force. The middle platter consists of guidance, the somewhat diffuse defence policy and military doctrines. The lowest platter is where the tangible items exist: grand strategy as well as strategy.The hierarchy ensures that the higher, prolix layer provides the pathways and guardrails for the next, more concise layer. Together and over time, these ideational tracts – along with the outcomes of their implementation – shape strategic culture.Defined loosely, strategic culture refers to historical attitudes towards power and the behaviour of a nation when it comes to using force. The national ethic is located at the apex of the process, making it highly consequential. To miscue it would potentially make the entire strategic edifice awry.The debate in India over the absence of strategic products – like a national security strategy – owes itself to contestations over the national ethic. The constitution, drawing on the ideals of the freedom movement, laid the groundwork for convergence in thinking on national security. However, in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s governments, there have been attempts to ride on the back of religion to give the national ethic an authoritative stamp.This is because of the duality at play in the unacknowledged political project of this regime. While it bows to the constitution, it also surreptitiously shreds the document to pieces. The security domain, on which it relies to seek legitimacy as well as sustenance, cannot steer clear of this game plan. Accordingly, strategic culture is harnessed to the regime’s purpose.Indian strategic culture is being constructed afresh in the regime’s image through official diktat. Self-consciously pursuing its image of being strong on defence, it has been selecting vignettes and aphorisms from the ancient text to support its ideas of India’s martial grandeur – which it also claims was eclipsed for the past past 1,200 years. The regime seeks to rivet its security policies to Kautilyan thinking. Barring exceptions, Bollywood has also been sequestered in the manufacture of this grandeur.The regime can well pitch for an assertive stretegic doctrine and condition public sentiment accordingly. After all, even its detractors counterpose the claims of Chanakyan thinking with the Ashokan security perspective that prevailed in vast tracts of Indian history and geography. In this debate between ‘shanti and shakti,’ the problem arises when the gods are invoked to ballast the regime’s preferred strategic doctrinal choices.Referencing religion – as Rajnath Singh does – implies that the regime wishes not merely to steal a march over its opponents but to outmanoeuvre them in perpetuity. Since the majoritarian gameplan does not necessarily have the external security environment as much in mind as the domestic, this is a fraught prospect. Therefore, when appraising the strategic field in India, the parallel political project cannot be lost sight of. Scholars are liable to arrive at anodyne appraisals of strategic culture if this duality is not sufficiently appreciated.Singh’s statements make the regime’s ideology-driven national ethic evident. While cultural nationalism can and will influence the national ethic, it cannot supplant the constitution. Only a Hindu Rashtra can anchor a national ethic rooted in Sanatan Dharma. For now, this project elides the necessary consensus. The 2024 Lok Sabha election verdict clipped the wings of the ruling regime, largely because it was seen to target the constitution if it scored ‘char-sau paar’ (more than 400 seats in parliament). When the seers of Ayodhya and elsewhere said they would stay away from the Ayodhya inauguration in January 2024, that signified the illegitimacy of the regime’s political project.Simply put, the ‘movement’ Singh referred to is not quite the place to rummage about in search of a national ethic.As befits a democratically obedient military, the Indian military has rightly addressed itself to construct a strategic culture in line with an assertive strategic doctrine. Notwithstanding civil-military fusion, the uppermost platter of the strategic process are largely civilian mandated and must be politically led. The defence minister’s trial balloon – there was no official press release from his ministry on the remarks – shows up the potential next steps in the ongoing reconstruction of India’s strategic culture.The military would be wise not to mistake reiterations as marching orders. As the military drafts its vision document – part 1 is due out soon – it will hopefully be wary of the regime seeking to fire from its shoulders.Ali Ahmed is a strategic analyst. The original version of this essay first appeared on the author’s Substack. It has been edited and republished with permission.