Hate, and Its Different Manifestations

The recent thwarted attack on a Hindu temple in Illinois is an eye-opening example of how far hate politics can go. According to prosecutors, a 19-year-old man, Alexandros Paporakis, told a coworker that he could not wait to kill Indian people and was planning an attack on the largest Hindu temple in Aurora. He allegedly said he had been planning this for two years, that his gun had jammed, and that he would try again once he fixed it. He was arrested on October 11. The plan was foiled not only because the gun reportedly jammed, but because a coworker who got wind of the motive did not choose to ignore it or remain silent. The coworker informed the authorities, and that is how the attacker was arrested. We managed to avoid a tragedy, and we will never know how big it could have been.

This raises a larger question: how and why do some people become so filled with hate toward people they don’t know personally that they are willing to massacre them indiscriminately? What is the origin of such a motive? In my view, it all starts with hate speech and hate politics, which look benign precisely because they are so rampant. This was not an isolated incident. There may be no gang or organized effort behind it, but it did not happen in a vacuum. Consider Canton, Ohio, in 2023: a 13-year-old boy was charged after allegedly posting a detailed plan on Discord to carry out a mass shooting at a synagogue, Temple Israel. He reportedly admitted to being part of antisemitic groups online. The target was different, and so was the community, but the poison was the same.

Targeting minorities and fueling hate against them is a common strategy among many politicians, especially right-wing ones, though hate has no single political home. They take isolated incidents and generalize them to paint an entire community in a certain way. They conveniently avoid doing the same with their own voter base, but blatantly apply double standards against the group they want to target. This tactic creates manufactured divisiveness in society, and it favors them by consolidating votes through fear and panic. It is an old trick, used for ages to rule gullible people. Reasonable people, or anyone with common sense, see through it, but as they say, common sense is not so common, so many still fall for it.

Also, when those who spread hate become targets of hate or violence themselves, they cry foul loudly. They ignore, or even deny, that they propagated hate in the first place. If you started a fire to burn someone’s house and now complain when the same fire reaches your own, why did you start it in the first place? This has been happening regularly, so regularly that people no longer seem shocked.

We have normalized hate speech so much, and social media has provided such a lucrative platform, that we see such speech daily. It is not only tolerated nowadays but highly encouraged, because it is the quickest way to become politically relevant or a social influencer. The formula is simple: target a vulnerable or minority group, take out-of-context examples to paint the entire group as villains, spew hate with baseless allegations or historical events that have no connection with today’s world, and spread fear and panic to cultivate hate. When this goes on too long, hate becomes chronic, and you never know how it may manifest. Hindus and Indians have been targeted in recent times, and this plot shows where that can lead. The alleged white supremacist who planned to open fire on a Hindu temple to kill innocent Hindus and Indians is one such manifestation. Chronic hate could also manifest as a pilot planning ot crash a plane full of Israelis, or as a mob or a person lynching someone of a different race, caste, or religion over a trivial suspicion, like eating meat that they think is forbidden in their own religion. There is no limit to the form chronic hate can take.

We have seen enough of such manifestations and lost enough innocent lives. We must say enough is enough and question every hate speech, irrespective of its level or origin. Freedom of speech must be protected, and I am not in favor of banning such speech; that is not what I am advocating. I want people to challenge those who make such speeches. I want counterarguments and questioning. I want people to ask for accountability whenever such incidents happen. I would say the same if the target were a mosque, a church, a synagogue, or a gurdwara, and the same no matter which side the speaker is on. If we hesitate, the cost is too high. Innocent lives are at stake, and silence is not an option. The coworker who spoke up did exactly what we all should do. This is one small attempt from my side not only to condemn this incident but to question its origin and to call for action to challenge the ecosystem that breeds such behavior.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic.

Nana Patekar: Mourning a Legend, Hearing the Survivor

Famous actor Nana Patekar passed away on October 8, 2026. He was considered one of the fittest actors of his age, which is why his sudden death shocked many, including me. Nana was also known for his distinctive acting style, especially his dialogue delivery. His unconventional background and his image of not being easy to work with created a unique enigma around his personality. For the last two decades or so, he was also active in social work, helping farmers and addressing irrigation-related issues through his NGO, Naam Foundation. Many of his interviews are a treat to watch because of his candor and demeanor. He was fluent in Marathi and Hindi, so I could enjoy his interviews in both languages. His recitations of poetry and other beautiful lines from literary works, especially Marathi literature, were equally memorable. I have seen very few Bollywood actors in person, and Nana is one of only two, the other being Neena Gupta. During my college days, I saw him walking on Tilak Road in Pune, dressed in a white shirt and blue jeans, with a small group of young students walking alongside him. There were no bodyguards and none of the spectacle we see around celebrities today. What impressed me was his calm demeanor and the ease with which he carried himself in public, even though he was already famous. That memory has stayed with me to this day. It was not a surprise, then, that his death brought an outpouring of messages from fans and well-wishers who were touched by his presence or his work. His story reads like an ideal rags-to-riches tale: a person with no privilege or background enters the field of arts and becomes a celebrated icon, despite having no formal training or the other advantages that such successful people generally have.

However, there is another side to this story. India’s MeToo movement is widely seen as having begun with actress Tanushree Datta’s 2018 allegation of sexual harassment against Nana. She had first filed an official complaint in 2008, but the issue resurfaced in 2018 and triggered the movement in India. Of course, Nana denied these allegations and any misconduct. Tanushree has maintained her stance since then and has even produced some corroborative evidence. This is all in the public domain.

To be a hero on screen and to be a hero in real life are two different things. If someone achieves both, that is remarkable, and according to many, Nana managed to do so. What do we do with serious allegations against otherwise likable and genuine personalities who have positively touched so many lives? Do we vilify them based on the allegations, or ignore the allegations altogether in light of everything else they have done? It is not an easy question to answer or an easy dilemma to resolve, and Nana’s case is a classic example.

We can love someone’s art and performance without agreeing with their every action. After all, even successful people are human. They have their weaknesses and personal battles that others know nothing about, and they suffer from the same mental and physical challenges that we all go through because of the culture and environment around us. They can make mistakes, even serious ones, and it may be difficult for them to accept those mistakes when so much is at stake because of their name and fame. This does not mean they should get a free pass. They receive love and adulation because of their fame, and they will receive proportional scrutiny and criticism for their mistakes. It cuts both ways: you cannot reap all the benefits of being a celebrity and complain when it brings additional responsibility and scrutiny. However, it is also wrong to judge someone based on just one incident. Any person is much more than one action, but the nature and seriousness of that incident also matters. If we ignore misdemeanors or offensive behavior just because the person is otherwise great, we are not only applying double standards; we are being hypocrites.

Many victims do not come forward because of fear of backlash and social shame. When the accused is famous and powerful, the battle for victims is orders of magnitude tougher, and the odds are against them. This is why listening to victims when they speak up is not only warranted but obligatory in any fair and just society. This is the test not of that celebrity but of ours.

No doubt, Nana was a great actor, philanthropist, and social worker. He touched many lives positively, and I am sure many carry great memories of him. I carry one too: a calm, confident man walking down Tilak Road, comfortable in public despite his fame. People have the right to celebrate those memories and his legacy. At the same time, society needs to recognize the victim’s voice and give it the recognition and space it demands from a just society. Holding both truths is uncomfortable, but it is necessary. As I said, the test is not of Nana or Tanushree; it is of us as a society, and there is no easy way out. Someone’s fame or death does not erase harm. Public mourning does not erase the pain survivors carry. People celebrating someone’s legacy should not expect victims to stay silent about their pain and struggles. We must learn how to handle these complex situations, and I hope we are mature enough to do so.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic.

Immigrant Diary 1: Roots, Routes, and Everything in Between

I have been thinking of writing about my journey as a child of migrants in India and as an immigrant to the USA myself. My parents migrated from one part of India to another. They are originally from Uttar Pradesh, a state in the northern part of India, but I was born and raised in Maharashtra, a state in the western part of India. Both states have distinct cultures, foods, and languages. Later, I immigrated with my family to the USA, a different country, again with a different language, culture, and food. Both of these experiences were unique and layered on top of each other in ways I am still processing.

My parents grew up speaking Bhojpuri in the villages of Uttar Pradesh, shaped by its traditions, its feudalism, casteism, and its own dynamics. I grew up in a completely different society and culture from my parents, and my kids are growing up in a completely different society and culture from me. My parents, my wife, I, and my kids all grew up in different places, immersed in different cultures, and think in different languages, even our first languages are different from one another. These differences have created a unique mix, resulting in singular challenges and advantages that make each of our experiences distinct in its own way. We did not cross one border; we crossed several, across generations, and yet here we are, one family. I have never quite found the right word for what that is.

My aim in writing these posts is to share some, ideally all, of these experiences with my readers. I am certain that many of them will resonate with people or offer a perspective they had not previously considered. I am not claiming that no one else has had such experiences, but I believe they are rare enough to be worth sharing. You may ask: why now? I feel now is a more necessary time than ever. In today's world, where differences are amplified and divisions are manufactured, I hope my journey might inspire people to see how something unique, beautiful, loving, and sustainable can be built across all manner of differences. How do we build on each other's strengths so that our weaknesses don't consume us and destroy what we have built? I am not here to preach about "unity in diversity" or "united we stand, divided we fall." My aim is simply to share experiences and let readers decide what they want to take from them.

A few things to note about how I plan to share: this series will not follow any particular chronological order. Although I have maintained personal written diaries for many years, I do not plan to share these experiences sequentially. I will share them based on my own interest and comfort level, but I do intend to share as much as I can. I have always believed that a personal journey has more to offer than opinions alone, and that many times the journey is more exciting than the destination, which is precisely why we read biographies.

I don't know where this sharing will take me. I have already touched on aspects of my life in some of my earlier blog posts. I may or may not succeed in creating something meaningful here, but I want to try. I have always believed in attempting what we strongly feel compelled to do. It is better to try and fall short than to spend years lamenting that we never gave it a shot. Stay tuned for more entries in my immigrant diary.

Thank you for reading, and please share your views on this topic.