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.

What Hate Politics Taught Me

The rise of cult politicians like Trump, Modi, and many others around the world has transformed the political landscape across many regions and countries. A new right-wing politics has emerged, one built entirely on hate and division. In reality, polarization, or divide and rule, has long been a familiar political trick used by politicians across parties to win elections. But these political cult leaders and their comrades have taken polarization to unprecedented levels. They not only managed to sharpen ideological differences but also divided people as if they were enemies of each other, separated by race, nationality, and political belief.

This phenomenon, no matter how harmful to our nations and societies, has taught me at least one important thing. It has shown me how many people around me, including friends and family, carry deep hatred toward people they have never even met. This hatred is not rooted in personal experience; it is driven purely by the religion, caste, or nationality of those they feel threatened by. Many hold a visceral hatred for Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, other races, and people who simply look different, and they no longer feel the need to hide it.

What surprises me most is not the hatred itself, but how comfortably people carry it, how they live with that much rage and venom inside them, day after day, and call it normal. I often wonder whether this hatred is a newly formed perception, shaped by propaganda constantly fed to them from every direction, or whether it was always there, dormant, and simply resurfaced when it found a conducive environment, the way a latent virus reawakens.

In a strange way, all this polarization has been clarifying. While revealing the true character of many people around me, it reminded me how rare and precious love and kindness actually are.

Hostility toward my views is not new to me. I have faced it since I was very young, and I was still trying to navigate complex questions and doubts I had about many things happening around me. But the intensity of the attacks, and the visceral, personal hatred directed at anyone who dares to disagree, is something new. The moment you express an opinion, you are not only placed in a camp but branded with a label meant to ridicule rather than engage. There is no discussion, only attack. Questions are not asked; accusations are hurled, and judgments are passed. Shouting matches are passed off as debates. Facts no longer matter if they fail to confirm what you already believe. Everything that challenges your belief is fake; everything that validates it is unquestionable truth. This is the binary world manufactured by cult politicians and their followers.

Even in this polarized and charged environment, I feel genuinely lucky — lucky that what I carry inside me is not hate, but love, and enough of it to spread around. While so many choose to spew venom, I choose differently. And in times like these, that choice feels more important than ever.

I hope that no matter what you believe or which political party you support, you choose to spread love and not hatred. Because you can only give what you have, and if what you are spreading is hate, fear, and lies, that is what you are full of. Be brave. Choose love over hate. 

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

The Way Hate Politics Works

Hate politics is on the rise across the world. To illustrate this disturbing trend, I often point to two large democracies, India and the United States, where political polarization is not accidental but carefully manufactured. Political parties and leaders actively cultivate division because fear and resentment are easier to mobilize than reason, empathy, or long-term vision.

What amazes me most is how easily people fall for this blatantly misleading rhetoric, especially in an era where information is readily available and facts can be verified within seconds. Yet, truth has become secondary to emotion. Hate-driven narratives are repeated so often and so loudly that many stop questioning them altogether.

One striking pattern I have consistently observed is this: people who subscribe to hate politics almost always hate groups of people they do not personally know. Ask someone who claims to hate Muslims whether they have a Muslim friend, and more often than not, the response will be, “Yes, but they are different; they are not like the others.” Ask a racist white person about a Black or Hispanic friend, and you will hear the same justification. Ask someone who harbors antisemitic views about a Jewish acquaintance, and suddenly that individual becomes an “exception.”

This pattern exposes the fundamental dishonesty of hate. People instinctively recognize the humanity, complexity, and decency of individuals they personally know, yet they willingly dehumanize millions of others they have never met. Entire communities are reduced to caricatures, stereotypes, or worst-case examples, while personal acquaintances are conveniently excluded from that same judgment. This is not logic; it is prejudice dressed up as reasoning.

The truth is simple and uncomfortable: no society, religion, country, or identity group is monolithic. There is no such thing as a uniform culture or a homogeneous community. Every group, without exception, contains a wide spectrum of people: kind and cruel, ethical and corrupt, generous and selfish. To take the worst examples from any group and apply them universally is intellectual laziness at best and moral failure at worst.

Diversity is not a threat to any society; it is the very fabric that makes societies resilient, creative, and humane. Differences in belief, culture, language, and identity are not weaknesses to be feared but strengths to be protected and celebrated. A society that demands uniformity eventually suffocates itself, while one that embraces diversity learns, adapts, and grows.

Politicians understand the power of hate all too well. They know it is a potent weapon, one that can be deployed quickly for short-term political gains. Winning elections “at any cost” has become so normalized that the cost itself - social trust, communal harmony, and even human lives - is treated as collateral damage. Politicians behaving like vultures is nothing new, and frankly, it does not surprise me anymore. What truly troubles me are the people who enable and amplify this kind of politics. Ordinary individuals become foot soldiers for hate, repeating slogans, justifying cruelty, and defending leaders who thrive on division. I do not say this from a place of moral superiority; I was once guilty of this myself during a highly ignorant phase of my teenage years. But learning, unlearning, and growing out of hate is possible. I know this because I have lived it.

Unfortunately, many do not stop at passive support. They actively empower hate-mongering leaders and help create a volatile, hostile environment for anyone who refuses to conform to the dominant narrative. This is how democracies erode, not overnight, but gradually, as empathy is replaced with suspicion and disagreement is treated as betrayal.

Hate is a slow poison or wildfire; it does not discriminate, and it does not stop at its intended targets. It corrodes everything it touches, including those who propagate it. History has shown us this lesson repeatedly. We have seen where unchecked hate leads, and we have paid a horrifying price in the past, including during the two World Wars. One would hope that humanity has learned something from those tragedies. If not, we risk repeating them yet again. 

Despite this bleak reality, I remain an optimist. I sincerely hope that those participating in hate-driven movements will eventually recognize the futility and danger of their actions. My hope is simple: that people will begin to see how hate operates, how it manipulates fear, and how it destroys trust, compassion, and love, the very foundations on which societies are built. When that realization comes, perhaps we will finally choose leaders who unite rather than divide, and values that heal rather than harm.

Until then, the responsibility lies with each of us to resist hate, question narratives, and protect the diversity that makes us human.

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

Politics and Violence: A Marriage of Convenience

In today’s world, politics and violence are no longer separate ideas. If you look closely at the rhetoric of modern politics, across countries and parties, you will see that hate and aggression are woven into nearly every radical populist political movement. Violence is no longer confined to unstable or developing nations with ethnic conflicts; it has become a global political currency.

Why? Because hate and polarization deliver tremendous dividends. They guarantee long-term power without the burden of accountability. This is why almost every government or political party is tempted to use this method either to win an election or stay in power without doing any public good. A divided society does not ask its leaders for jobs, education, or healthcare. Instead, it demands revenge. Citizens begin to rejoice not in their own well-being, but in the suffering of their opponents. This is the enduring “divide and rule” strategy: fear and hate for those who look different, pray differently, or think differently. It is one of the oldest tricks in politics, and in the age of social media, it has become more potent than ever.

You may ask: aren’t people smart enough to recognize when they are being manipulated? You wish. In the age of social media algorithms, echo chambers have become impenetrable. People are now fed only what they already believe. Rarely do they challenge their views; instead, they consume one reel, one meme, one outrage post at a time until bigotry feels like truth.

This brainwashing has consequences. Racism, sexism, misogyny, and xenophobia are dressed up as nationalism, populism, or patriotism. The freedom of expression is invoked to defend hateful propaganda, but when others use the same freedom to dissent, they are silenced or branded as traitors. Even parties that claim to champion freedom of speech remain silent when their opponents are silenced through government force or intimidation, such is the blinding effect of the lust for power. What we see is not freedom, it is propaganda masquerading as liberty. The echo chambers of hate are not only created by powerful algorithms, but they are actively reinforced by the tactful monitoring of human behavior and tacit approval from all parties who benefit from it. 

The tragedy deepens when governments themselves deploy propaganda. When hate becomes a policy, instead of debating ideas for the public good, politicians weaponize communities against one another to mask their own failures and corruption. We see working-class citizens cheering for tax cuts for billionaires, believing that the “enemy within” is to blame for their struggles.

Take immigration. It is a serious problem that requires solutions, but instead of policy, politicians fuel hatred against entire communities. The result? Citizens are fighting among themselves while those in power escape scrutiny. In this system, every death becomes political capital, not a human tragedy. Citizens are not valued as members of society but used as political weapons, activated, manipulated, and discarded.

History is full of examples: empires, kings, colonizers, and dictators have always relied on hate and violence as tools of control. What is alarming today is that even democratically elected governments are adopting the same playbook, ruling less like representatives of the people and more like autocrats. And disturbingly, citizens are not just tolerating it; they are cheering it on. Many celebrate the erosion of fundamental rights when it happens to their opponents, convinced that it will never touch them. But when genocides are glorified as heroics and propaganda is consumed as fact, society loses its moral compass. Bigotry may start as an opinion, but repeated often enough, it calcifies into “truth.” Once that “truth” is amplified by media and algorithms, propaganda doesn’t just shape the news, it becomes the news.

The saddest reality is this: we, the people, are allowing it to happen. Our silence, our complicity, and our willingness to stay in our comfort zones enable this cycle. It does not have to be this way. Politics need not be synonymous with violence and hate. Our political opponents are not enemies of the state. We can reject this toxic model. We can choose love, compassion, constructive criticism, and accountability as the foundation of politics.

The power of hate is immense, but so is the power of humanity. History shows that hate divides, but love unites. The choice is before us. The question is: will we wake up in time?

Thank you for reading. Please share your views on this topic. 

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved. Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com

Sibling rivalry

Having siblings comes with its own pros and cons. The good part is that you always have someone to talk to and someone to look for support whenever you need it. On the other hand, you have to share almost everything with your siblings up to a particular age, you have someone nagging you all the time, and there is no way to escape this person even if you want to. Hence there is a popular phrase "sibling rivalry," even though siblings are not supposed to be rivals of each other. It is true that most sibling relationships go through a very volatile phase, this phase mostly starts in their teens and continues in their twenties, and then slowly things cool off and settle to bring some normalcy to their relationship. How strong the sibling bond remains largely depends on how tremulous was that volatile phase and how long it takes to cool things off. Another thing that complicated this is that most siblings are not good communicators with each other no matter how articulative and patient they are otherwise. One can easily notice the anger and contempt for no reason when siblings are having an argument with each other, these feelings are not with malice or any other bad intentions but they are there. Too much proximity and continuous presence in each other's life generates some unwanted and unavoidable hostility towards each other. Sibling rivalry is no fun either for siblings or parents, but it is an unavoidable phase of their lives that is impossible to escape, therefore, it is better to learn some valuable lessons from it. This rivalry only results in some positive results when siblings use it for healthy competition and get motivated by each other. It does reach to this stage in many cases but not without its own struggles. 

Can parents help? Not much. Parents are not the reasons for this problem and they can do little to resolve it. Even the forceful use of parental authority that most parents use when they run out of ideas is of little use in this case. Parents can definitely help by not making things worse by comparing siblings with each other and they should make sure that things don't get out of control and get physical, but beyond that, it is the siblings themselves who can resolve whatever issues they have. Acting as a mediator can be an option but most parents don't give enough time to develop such a relationship with their child where they can have candid conversations about various issues their child is facing, hence this option is not available for most parents. As mentioned earlier, things largely depend on how and when things cool off. Arguments and friction are unavoidable, but one thing that siblings don't do with each other which they do in their other relationships like their friendships is that they don't offer the same benefit of the doubt to their siblings that they offer to their friends. 

Siblings can be a great support to each other and this relationship should not be taken for granted just because this is a family-originated bond. Siblings must put some effort and invest quality time in building this relationship as they do with any other relationship. Like any other relationship, this also goes through its own ups and downs, and if not given the attention it requires can disintegrate and get damaged beyond repair. However, there is no need for parents to panic, keep an eye and don't get involved too much, there is no need for firefighters if there is no fire. Siblings should be able to sort out all the issues on their own with little help from their parents. 

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

© Vinay Thakur, All rights reserved, Vinay can be reached at thevinay2022@gmail.com 

Hate is politically potent currency that politicians use abundantly

Political polarization does not happen accidentally, it is a carefully planned and designed phenomenon by politicians who know for sure what are they doing. Hate is a very powerful emotion, it can shut rationality and logic, even for the most sophisticated minds, that is why it is a potent and valuable political currency and politicians use it abundantly. Politics is an intense and fiercely competitive field, that's why political battles are fought like wars with troops from opposite sides trying to defeat each other. However, there is one major difference between politics and other wars, in politics, the aim is to defeat your opponents' ideas or ideology, not to eliminate or kill them as individuals. Politics is all about the clash of ideologies and policies, it is not about people who convey those ideas. Yes, charismatic orators or personalities help to convey those ideas in a better way, but in the end, it's all about those ideas and not about the person expressing them. 

However, when ideas are not that strong, rather they are weak and full of objectionable motives, or the opposition also has equally good or even better ideas, then, hate helps. Hate is such a strong emotion that politicians are tempted to use it more often than any other emotion. It is used so often that many times, the hate itself becomes the agenda. It is easy to divide people between we versus they, nationals versus anti-nationals, pro-x versus anti-x, or any other division. Hateful propaganda reaps political dividends, and politicians enjoy success with the complete awareness that they are inflicting serious damage to their country or society. Political victories are addictive to politicians as well as their supporters, these victories not only give a sense of ideological triumph but also act as a validation of their tactics. It creates a perception that hate is justified because it is validated through a ballot box. 

When hate is mixed in politics with any ideology, the opponent does not remain only a political rival but becomes an enemy of the nation and society, worthy of exodus, all this just because of a political disagreement. However, people engaged in all this forget that hate is like fire, it burns indiscriminately after a certain point. A hateful campaign may reap political dividends in the short term, but the hateful society it creates always remains at a flashpoint. Once politicians legitimize hate and violence directly or indirectly it becomes an accepted method to resolve any conflict. People start using violence or spewing hate wherever they feel there is some conflict, and this cannot be controlled even by the same politicians who used hatred to come into power. Hateful societies can never be a healthy place to live as they become exclusive, they cannot allow flourishing for all types of talent, as there will be always a violent reaction to disagreements.   

The current trend of political polarization and making almost each and every debatable issue a politically sensitive topic is a new popular trend in world politics. People who participate in these campaigns are equally responsible along with the politicians that instigate them. After all, politicians get elected on votes, and if people support hate, politicians are shamelessly going to use it for electoral victories. The situation is getting so bad that there is no even pretense, hate is visible and felt during many political campaigns across the world, and may seem to be okay with this. These are testing times for humanity and everyone who thinks that diversity of opinion is necessary, minority opinion is valuable even when they are wrong, every voice needs to be heard and given space, and decent needs to be protected. Let's see who wins, hate and exclusiveness or love and inclusiveness.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic. 

It is in their blood

How many of you have heard someone saying "It's in their blood" while referring to some undesirable social or criminal behavior by some individual to blame that entire community, religion, race, or country for that one person's behavior? This is a deeply prejudicial and biased statement, full of underlying hatred. I have heard it many times since I can remember. This line is often used to insult a particular community, religion, or country rather than for anyone's praise. I heard people using it against Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and within Hindus so-called upper caste people using it against so-called lower caste groups, and so on. Recently, I heard this line while attending a social function sometime before India was expecting a major decision from its supreme court in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid land dispute case. This dispute dragged on for decades and was used by the BJP and some other political parties as an effective political pool. Finally, when the Supreme Court of India decided to declare its judgment about this dispute, there was a concern about the effect of this judgment on the communal harmony of the country. During this social gathering, the discussion drifted toward this topic, one of my friends sounded pretty sure that there would be communal riots in India, and I asked him what made him believe that riots would happen for sure. He thought that Muslims of India wouldn't take the count's decision in the right spirit and start rioting. My next question was why was he so sure that Muslims would initiate the riot and not the Hindus? What if the decision goes against the Hindus? My question was more theoretical than practical, it was clear to everyone in whose favor the court would rule, but I wanted to know why he was so sure to blame Muslims for communal riots. His quick reply was that it was in their blood to do such things. I was stunned, not because I heard this for the first time, but because of where I heard this. So far, I have not heard such a statement from some literate person who knew quite a few Muslims and someone who lived in the US and some other countries for many years.

Even though it was shocking that someone could make such a statement about some community, it should not have surprised me considering I had some of these biases until my college days. Over a period of time, I also realized that for many people it is impossible to get rid of some of their prejudices and biases. This is the reason why the politics of hate still work, why some religious leaders from all religions can propagate hate and still get many followers. Why do some organizations openly propagate race or gender supremacy and still find many who subscribe to their bigotry? Also, anyone can be a bigot, starting from an illiterate to a Ph.D. or a Nobel laureate. I did not feel anger or frustration but felt pity for my friend that he is living with such a deep prejudice against Muslims. However, I couldn't do anything to cure it, I tried it but I failed. This friend is just an example, I do not want to single this person out for such behavior, there are many who think and believe in such things. Any social trait or criminal behavior is not in anyone's blood, people act in a certain way for a variety of reasons. It is not only wrong to accuse someone as a born violent or born criminal, but it also shows how screwed up our own thinking is. I wish such people a speedy recovery from their prejudice and bias. To a certain extent, we all are affected by certain prejudices and biases and we all must try first to consciously find them, and make every effort to overcome them by continuously educating ourselves. It is not easy, it is not comfortable, but it is necessary. If we dream of a peaceful and tolerant world, we need to eliminate our own biases as much as possible. My own journey in this direction is quite rewarding and fulfilling and I hope everyone who reads this will start their own journey to de-clutter their mind to remove things that act as a poison for our consciousness.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic. 

Why it is important to understand enigma of American politics - Donald Trump

One of the front runners for the Republican nomination for next year's presidential elections Mr. Donald Trump has been creating a lot of media waves all over the world. Somehow, he manages to grab headlines in print or electronic media because of his statements. Many of his statements have generated very polarized responses with some praising him for calling spade a spade (hinting that he is telling the truth, even though he might sound politically incorrect) and some criticizing him for spreading hatred and negativity about certain sections of society (an outright racist, misogynist, etc.). But to everyone's surprise, so far he managed to stay in the news, and also if polls are to be believed he is still one of the front runners to grab the Republican presidential nomination. Many people are surprised by his high popularity as well as the amount of support his statements receive. He is considered an outsider in politics, but for all Republican primary candidates, he is giving a run for their money. To some, this "outsider" tag might seem like a big drawback, especially, when you are planning to run for the topmost political post in the country, but this guy has managed to turn this to his advantage by diffusing all attacks that question his political inexperience. I am not at all his supporter or for that matter any party supporter, but I have a deep interest in politics and like to study various aspects of it, and there is no doubt that Mr. Trump is the most unusual and interesting candidate in this US presidential race.

I live in Connecticut, which is considered a loyal Democrat state, that's why I was really surprised to hear when an old lady who was a very devoted democrat supporter for many years said that maybe this time she will vote for Mr. Trump if he gets the nomination. It is worthwhile to note that she didn't say that she would vote for some republican candidate, but she specifically mentioned Mr. Trump. I guess the main reason behind this is people's frustration with politicians from both parties, election after election they witnessed every presidential candidate making huge promises during their campaigns, they all promised to bring change, and in the end, nothing much changed on the ground. So, it seems that people are increasingly getting frustrated with the inability of seasoned politicians to deliver on their election promises. They are losing their faith in them, for all those people Mr. Trump is like a breeze of fresh air, someone who may not lie and cheat just to win an election. To boost this confidence, Mr. Trump already declared that he is not going to take any money for his campaign from so-called BIG donors who then try to influence the government. This is a very well-known fact, called lobbying. The donations that these corporations make to various candidates from both major parties is a sort of investment on their part to protect their own interests, and it doesn't matter which candidate wins these corporate houses make sure to keep their goodwill with both major parties. There is nothing illegal or wrong in this practice as it is allowed by law and everything is declared for everyone to see, so one should not blame these corporations for this as the system allows them to do this. They are just using legal ways to protect their business interests. It is the duty of politicians to make sure that they protect people's interests. Mr. Trump's controversial statements about illegal immigrants, Syrian refugees, or Muslim immigrants are very insensitive and controversial, but I think he knows that people will relate to his statements as most politicians won't dare to make such statements as they are offensive. Many seasoned politicians don't want to touch some of these topics because they don't want to get into trouble, they don't want to hurt their vote bank, and because of this attitude, many of them just refuse to accept that these problems even exist. This is where traditional politics fails and gives someone like Trump an opportunity to make their case, these problems and concerns are there and people need some answers. Why can't Democrats explain that if you legalize current illegal immigrants then how it doesn't mean that you are actually encouraging more illegal immigration? Just because people who broke the immigration law are in millions, is it okay to pardon their illegal act? Suppose the government does that today, then what is the guarantee that after 10 or 20 years the country will not be facing a similar situation, and then what to do? Issue another legal pardon and legalize all peaceful illegal immigrants? What is the process followed to make sure that all refugees entering the US need genuine help? The point I am trying to raise here is, that people have many questions like these, and politicians or political parties who are willing to legalize illegal immigrants or want to take more refugees are not able to explain properly why they want to do that. They somehow are not able to explain the logic and rationale behind their decision clearly and assertively. If you dodge a question, you give your opponents a chance to say that you are hiding something, or you don't have any answers to that question. This creates confusion and builds resentment. Any opposition to these issues can not be dismissed just based on partisan politics. This should not be projected as a democrat vs republican battle. Mr. Trump is not even a seasoned republican guy still he is getting so much support, we need to ask, why??

I think one major reason behind Mr. Trump's popularity is that there was an apparent disconnect between republican voters and politicians, and Mr. Trump is trying to bridge that gap. His ability to say some things that any traditional politician won't even dream of saying on a public platform is paying him some dividends. We all know that many times in politics political parties try to make use of the same issues in every election. Actually, many political parties are interested in keeping many issues alive because those issues generate votes for them in every election, I have seen it happening in India for decades, in the US the situation is much better compared to India, but these things happen here also. I guess people think that Mr. Trump can challenge this and change this, whether he will get elected or do it or not, is a different issue, but at least he is projecting himself as a "no-nonsense" person, and many people are buying that. Many of his controversial statements are highly flawed and made with a clear intention of polarizing people, they are inflammatory statements. They are clearly targeted to make use of feelings of uneasiness in people's minds. I guess he is willing to take the risk, and he thinks that rewards are high if it works in his favor. I am sure he also knows that it can backfire on him, but if he is also like the rest of the politicians, then why the heck people should choose him? He wants to set him apart from the rest, and I guess so far his strategy seems to be working. Pressure and obligation to be politically correct all the time has made many politicians very defensive, they hesitate to attack any problem aggressively because of fear that it might disturb their core constituency. Fear of being sidelined or hammered by the press and the public who are just looking for one loose statement to finish someone's political career is very real among all public figures. Mr. Trump seems to be immune to this fear and it seems many people are appreciating this. 

One can agree or disagree with Mr. Trump's statement or even dismiss him as publicity publicity-hungry businessman or call him an insignificant candidate who is not going to make it to the finish line, but there is no doubt that this man has created a lot of waves in the political arena. If it is good or bad only time will tell, but I think people should ponder over the fact that why is he getting so much support? Maybe it will help us understand many issues that are stuck in deadly partisan politics in such a way that it seems they can not be resolved no matter how long both parties try. But there is no doubt that this is a dangerous path to achieve power, this is not a sustainable approach. You can not create a rift in society and then expect peace and unity. A similar thing happened in India last year. Current Indian prime minister Mr. Modi made use of a huge vacuum created by indecisive leadership and the inability of politicians to address some real problems like corruption, black money, poor infrastructure, communal tension, etc. He rose to the charts of the popularity index day by day by making many statements and promises which seasoned politicians in India hesitate to make. He said whatever people wanted to hear, whether it was about taking on Pakistan or China, about black money, the so-called pink revolution, or about dynastic politics. He used all rhetoric and theatrics, never apologized for any of his mistakes, or never minced his words while attacking someone and it all worked in his favor. Voters of India saw a ray of hope in him and gave him an unprecedented mandate, but since coming into power he has been struggling to clear his image as a divisive leader. He is finding it hard to rein in some elements of his own party who totally believe that it's okay to spread hate and make inflammatory statements as such things are validated by their top leader. Almost a year and a half has passed but the current government is still finding it very hard to pass some key reform bills in parliament in spite of having a clear majority as the opposition is just refusing to cooperate. It is easy to win elections by polarizing the society, but then it is not easy to neutralize that polarization when you want to run the country. While filling the vacuum created by indecisive political leadership, Mr. Trump is setting up the same dangerous precedence in the US that Mr. Modi did in India. Their intentions might be good, and they might be sincerely trying to do something good for their country, we should give both these leaders the benefit of the doubt, but then the method they are using has some serious side effects which cannot be ignored. Today he is targeting Muslims, what if tomorrow he says the same thing about Hindus or Africans? What is a guarantee that his supporters won't target other minority immigrants who according to them are taking up American jobs? A polarized and divided society can go in any direction, it is very difficult to predict. Purposely cultivated hatred can manifest in several ways, it is very dangerous to play with this fire. Divide and rule is the well-tested and best strategy if you just want to rule any society without having any concern about its welfare. This trick has been successfully used in the past many times to exploit many regions, but these regions are still struggling with those divisions, they are still grappling with problems like a lack of trust and perpetual communal tension. It is a very tempting strategy as it seems to provide immediate short-term gains, many political parties and leaders still use this in India. Does Mr. Trump want to see a similar situation in the US? We can find faults with other methods and ways used by other politicians or political parties, policies like minority or majority appeasement are also not good, but a clear agenda of divisiveness or hatred is the most dangerous among all. So, I hope people try to understand what's really going on. I hope even Mr. Trump will realize that he doesn't need to make such divisive statements to stay in the limelight or ahead in the polls. After all, no election win should be more important than the unity and prosperity of the nation. Please note one thing here, I am not at all objecting to the right of Mr. Trump to say those things, he has the freedom to say those things and others can criticize him for that as much as they want, I am just trying to discuss the merits and demerits of his divisive approach. If Mr. Trump doesn't change his ways, I hope voters realize that his approach is dangerous for the country and act accordingly. One should not underestimate his candidacy and approach, this has worked in countries like India and I see no reason why it may not work in the US. I hope each one of us understands this and thinks over these things logically, no matter in which country we reside, or which party or person we support.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]