By Justice (R) Markandey Katju (India)

Is it Donald Trump and those who support what critics describe as a reckless and unjustified war against Iran? Or is it the courage of individuals such as retired U.S. Marine Brian McGinnis, who protested against the war before the United States Senate on March 5, 2026, and was forcibly removed from the chamber, reportedly sustaining injuries?

This question goes beyond a single incident. It touches the deeper issue of what truly represents the spirit of a nation — the actions of those in power, or the conscience of its people.

Recent polling suggests that only about one-fourth of Americans currently support military strikes against Iran. As the conflict continues, opposition may grow, much as it did during the Vietnam War, when public opinion gradually turned against the conflict.

Already, protests against the war have taken place in cities such as New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and Indianapolis. History suggests that such demonstrations could grow as the economic and human costs of the war become clearer.

Wars are not only fought on battlefields, they are also fought in the wallets of ordinary citizens. Military conflicts bring rising government expenditures, higher taxes, and often surges in global oil prices. These economic pressures inevitably affect the public.

But the deeper issue is moral and historical.

Who represented America during its American Revolutionary War? Was it the British monarch George III, or the leaders of the Continental Congress such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson?

Similarly, during the French Revolution, did France belong to Louis XVI, or to the representatives of the Third Estate who formed the National Assembly?

In Russian Revolution, who represented Russia, Nicholas II, or the revolutionary movement led by Vladimir Lenin?

History repeatedly shows that the true voice of a nation often lies not with those who wield power, but with those who speak for justice, conscience, and the will of the people.

In earlier writings, I have expressed the view that the American people like people everywhere are fundamentally decent and humane. Governments may pursue policies, but societies contain diverse voices, many of which challenge those policies.

The Iranian people themselves are heirs to a civilization stretching back over 2,500 years. History suggests that nations with deep cultural roots and strong national identity rarely yield easily to external pressure or military force.

One of the most powerful reminders about America’s relationship with the world comes from George Washington. In his Farewell Address of 1796, Washington warned against the dangers of entanglement in foreign conflicts. He urged Americans to pursue peaceful trade with all nations while avoiding unnecessary wars.

Washington wrote:

“The nation which indulges toward another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.”

This warning remains strikingly relevant today.

If a nation allows persistent hostility toward one country and unquestioning attachment toward another, it risks losing its independence of judgment. Policy becomes driven not by national interest or moral reflection, but by entrenched alliances and animosities.

In the end, the question returns: Who truly represents America?

Is it those who advocate war and military confrontation, or those who raise their voices in protest, sometimes at great personal cost?

History often answers such questions long after events unfold. But one truth remains constant: nations are ultimately defined not only by their governments, but by the courage, conscience, and humanity of their people.