When Rishi Sunak was elected as an MP, he swore his oath of allegiance in the House of Commons on the Bhagavad Gita, one of Hinduism’s most sacred texts. Many – if not most – people think that Hinduism is a religion of peace: an idea that’s taken root thanks to Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy of nonviolence.

The truth is that the Bhagavad Gita is about war. The text consists of the dialogue between Lord Krishna and Prince Arjuna on the battlefield. Prince Arjuna is facing amoral and emotional dilemma. The battle is against his own kith and kin – many of whom would be sure to be killed. Arjuna asks Krishna whether he should renounce the war. Krishna’s counsel is unambiguous: Arjuna’s duty is to waste them. Arjuna wins the war, killing quite a few himself.

Hinduism clearly is not a pacifist religion. War is right when it is in a just cause. Volodymyr Zelensky should take succour from that – Rishi Sunak’s Hinduism will not be a barrier to supporting the Ukrainian President in his fight against Vladimir Putin. Much has been made of UK’s first Hindu prime minister being appointed on Diwali, which celebrates the triumph of good over evil. Zelensky should be doubly reassured.

It was also at Diwali two years ago that it became clear to the world that Sunak was a practising Hindu. He was photographed lighting candles outside No. 11. It took me back to my life at home in the 1960s, when my mother lit lamps and made a rangoli on the doorstep of our semi-detached house in Hounslow. We were the only Indian family in the street and the decoration marked us out as different. Never would I have believed, back then, that a prime minister would be lighting Diwali candles in Downing Street with a shrine inside No. 10. It’s testimony to how far we have become comfortable with different cultures and lifestyles.

Sunak said on the summer campaign trail that he’s a practising Hindu, a regular attendee at his temple. So none of this David Cameron stuff about religion coming in and out ‘like Magic FM in the Chilterns’: this is a prime minister of faith – which itself is unusual in an increasingly secular country. Nevertheless, now that Sunak is the country’s first Hindu PM, it is not easy to divine what influence his religion will have on policy decisions. Part of the problem is the religion itself. Hinduism is extraordinarily permissive. It has no founder or prophet, no prescriptive tenets and – a crucial difference from the Abrahamic faiths – no divine revelation, no revealed word of God. There are any number of texts to which one can apply the adjectives ancient and sacred. There is no dogma, and therefore no such thing as heretical thought. The result is a pick’n’mix religion with thousands of gods and which allows you to live the life you want to live.

What, then, is Sunak’s own version of Hinduism, the one that will guide him as he starts the most important job in the country? There are some clues in his words and deeds which, when viewed alongside some basic ideas of Hinduism which inform anyone who professes to be a Hindu, can begin to give a sense of the role Sunak’s religion might play in his policy and practices.

The lesson of the Bhagavad Gita is not that killing is good. The real lesson lies in the word ‘duty’. Hinduism is big on duty. It’s known as dharma and is one of the four primary aims of human life. The other three are artha (wealth), kama (pleasure) and moksha (liberation).

Artha is interesting because it is so unlike other religions: Hinduism is very relaxed about the amassing of wealth. There is a passage in another ancient text – the Manava-Dharma-shastra – which encourages its adherents to be money–oriented and materialistic. There is even a goddess of wealth, Lakshmi, who is widely worshipped. Sunak’s economic policies are geared to wealth creation. In Christianity, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke suggest you cannot serve both God and mammon. In Hinduism you can.

But Hinduism is wise to the pitfalls of accumulating wealth. The religion recognises that wealth is needed to perform many of the duties required to be a good Hindu. And dharma is the lifelong duty to behave virtuously. Spending money for the welfare of others is a virtuous action. Compassion for those who do not have wealth is also considered a duty. It might have been politically expedient for Sunak, as chancellor, to implement the furlough scheme and ‘eat out to help out’. But anyone expecting the new PM, for all his millions, to be a ruthless capitalist is in for a shock. His adherence to dharma will rein in the excesses of artha.

There is one area of public policy that may well take centre stage in a Sunak government: education. In Hinduism, education is an important means to achieve the four aims of human life. But even without this religious imperative, a good education is the one thing that obsesses many British Indian families. It is widely seen as the route to success. In August, Sunak tweeted: ‘A good education is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet when it comes to making people’s lives better.’ His own emphasis on education is informed by the sacrifices made by his family to ensure he had a great education. Of course, many families, of all religions, work hard to get their children into good schools. But it is the absolute driving force for British Indian families. The statistics speak for themselves: a recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report stated that ‘over 50 per cent of Indians… have tertiary [degree-level or equivalent] qualifications, compared with 26 per cent of the white majority’.

Sunak has already made some eye-catching remarks about education, from talking about a ‘British Baccalaureate’ to expanding the use of artificial intelligence in classrooms. Whether as a result of his religion or his cultural upbringing, it should come as no surprise if improving education becomes a central plank of a Sunak administration.

Finally, as well as being a Hindu, he is a ‘person of colour’, the description beloved of certain sections of the commentariat. Already the race lobby has written columns about how his elevation to PM is not a sign of Britain’s success in race relations. I find the phrase ‘people of colour’ offensive. Describing people as not white (parenthetical thought: isn’t white a colour?) is deeply negative. It implies that ‘white’ is the default setting and every other skin colour is a deviation. The phrase serves only to place us in a subordinate position, and that plays to the victim narrative equally beloved of the same sections of the commentariat.

Hinduism has no time for this mental slavery. Ask Sunak how he has struggled as an ethnic minority in Britain and he would likely look at you blankly: victimhood, as a way of being, has no place in Hinduism. His central ideas – based on his religious beliefs – are family values, hard work, education. His lack of interest in identity politics will doubtless put him at loggerheads with the race lobby – but this is a Prime Minister who will see no tension between his faith, his race and his country.