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.
No comments:
Post a Comment