Have you noticed that you meet a very nice person, and they do everything that you, as a person, love or admire? Then, as you get to know them better, you learn new things about them, and their mysterious walls fall away.
The things that made them admirable suddenly vanish, and you realize that this person you admired at the start is not as extraordinary as you imagined them to be.
As you spend more time with this person, you begin to learn about their political stance and other beliefs, some of which you may disagree with or not endorse. This new revelation about the person acts as the final nail in the coffin for the remaining admiration you have for this individual.
The same thing happens to everyone, regardless of whether you identify as right-wing, left-wing, or consider yourself a centrist. When you become aware of someone’s point of view, your brain switches to autopilot mode, and within a few seconds, you start judging this person based on the choices they have made or will make in the future.
This judgment of individuals with opposing political views is usually negative, leading to strong dislike and sometimes even hatred towards them.
Everything from your breakfast to your religion to the people around you shapes your political views.
Many of us like to believe that our political beliefs are entirely our own, stemming from our personal convictions. However, the truth is, that our upbringing, the people we surround ourselves with, and the world around us all contribute to shaping those beliefs.
Even as adults, external forces like celebrities, corporations, and the media can subtly influence the direction of our political compass.
Every aspect of your life, from what you eat and drink to what you wear, see, listen to, enjoy, love, desire, dream about, your aspirations, your religion, and more—all of these ultimately influence your political beliefs.
These influences often masquerade as independent choices, leading us to believe that we’re making decisions freely and shaping our beliefs without any outside influence.
For example, imagine you visit a shop, and a persuasive salesperson with a smile on his or her face convinces you to buy a specific color of the t-shirt. After making the purchase, you may feel like you’ve made the choice entirely on your own and feel happy and proud about the product you bought.
When we believe we’re making decisions independently, without any external influence, whether they turn out to be good or bad, we proudly take ownership of them, and they become part of our artificial identity.
The true aim of these influencers isn’t to foster critical thinking, help us, or show the way, but to push their agendas or motives. Sometimes, these people genuinely believe they’re presenting the truth or helping us, but in reality, they are pushing their agenda, which is deeply seeded in their consciousness.
A very good example of these blind agenda peddlers is Christian missionary and Muslim Dawah groups, who target individuals by painting other religions in a negative light.
In their minds, they see themselves as saviors, rescuing others from the eternal fire created by their Middle Eastern god, which condemns non-Muslims or non-Christians to hell in the afterlife for believing in false gods.
Whether they genuinely believe they’re presenting the truth or they’re driven by other motives, their goal remains the same: to mold our perspectives according to their beliefs and ideologies.
Dislike among people for each other and its underlying causes.
The Paradox of Right, Wrong
The biggest reason behind this dislike is that what is considered right by you might not be considered right by others, and the same goes for wrong; what you believe is wrong, and others might not see it as wrong.
For example, those raised in vegetarian families might see animal killing for food as wrong. They argue that there are plenty of delicious and nutritious options like fruits, vegetables, and grains that provide sustenance without harming animals.
Some non-vegetarians might argue that vegetarians are hypocrites because all food production has some impact on living things. Plants are living organisms too.
Similarly, a person who supports bikinis may not support conservative attire like burkas, while those who support burka-like clothing will argue against bikinis; both are on extreme points, with one symbolizing extreme freedom while the other symbolizes extreme bondage.
What is right for one person may be wrong for another, and no one really wants to believe that there is something wrong with their beliefs. And because of this, we can’t come up with a universal truth that everyone believes in; this division and dislike for opposite beliefs exist.
No presence of Neutrality
The more we observe, the more apparent it becomes that true neutrality is a rarity in our world. In our search for a neutral ground, we often find ourselves confronted with the extremes of every spectrum.
While there may exist individuals who possess a truly unique perspective—one unencumbered by the constraints of political correctness or tribal affiliations—these individuals are exceedingly scarce, numbering perhaps only in the thousands among billions.
They are not typically found online, participating in political discourse, adhering to religious doctrines, or even engaging with mainstream media.
Their rarity is such that one might travel the globe without encountering a single one. Yet, it is precisely these individuals who embody the essence of non-alignment and neutrality. Despite many of us considering ourselves neutral, including me, in reality, we inevitably hold beliefs that shape our worldview.
When these beliefs are challenged, we naturally take sides, contributing to the polarization that permeates society. Because of this, we lack the courage to acknowledge when something is bad or good due to our beliefs, political correctness, and the hidden pressure we feel.
Our sense of self, commonly referred to as the ‘ego,’ is intricately woven from the threads of time, the people we encounter, and the environment that surrounds us. This identity, often believed to be innate, is a mosaic of influences absorbed from our surroundings.
It is a compilation of the languages we speak, the religions we adhere to, our eating habits, the environments we live or have lived in, and the myriad experiences we have, etc.
We tend to hold dear all those elements that we consider part of our identity. Whether it’s our language, religious beliefs, country, ethnicity, race, values or even certain individuals in our lives, these components become integral parts of who we are. Consequently, when these cherished aspects are challenged or disrespected, we interpret it as a personal affront and a threat to our sense of self.
This defensive reaction is natural, as we instinctively protect what we hold dear, whether it is physical or non-physical, like an idea. Consequently, we often develop a dislike toward those who threaten or disrespect these dear elements of our identity, and in most cases, opposing political views do exactly this.
Wake Up the Tribal or Group Nature of Human
Humans have been inherently tribal in nature since ancient times. This is because tribes provide essential necessities like food, love, shelter, and security. Being part of a tribe makes us feel secure, loved, and relaxed, contributing to our overall happiness.
Belonging to a tribe also instills a sense of responsibility towards its members during challenging times. However, modern political views often exacerbate divisions within tribes, fragmenting them into opposing factions or modern tribes based on artificial identities.
Anti-tribal political stances are often criticized, as they threaten the existence of tribes. Yet, when viewed objectively, such views hold merit.
Consider the creation of new countries and cities. Initially established by natives, along with skilled refugees and immigrants, these settlements flourish over time through the collective efforts of their inhabitants.
However, their success attracts unwelcome attention, leading to issues like illegal immigration and invasions from neighboring or distant lands, such as the Islamic and European invasions of India or the current state of Europe.
In response, some advocate for exclusivity, aiming to safeguard their community from potential threats. Others argue for inclusivity, believing in equal opportunities for all. Both perspectives have their rationale: exclusivity may restrict the entry of skilled and beneficial individuals crucial for growth, while inclusivity poses the risk of accommodating unskilled and undesirable individuals, including violent criminals who neither appreciate the country nor its culture. Moreover, this can foster the proliferation of violent ghettos, slums, pollution, poverty and high crime rates.
Extreme views on either side pose dangers, necessitating a balanced approach. However, corrupt politicians often exploit these issues for their own gain, allowing illegal immigration and favoring non-natives for short-term benefits, undermining the interests of natives.
Extreme political views on such matters only deepen the divide. When we encounter individuals whose views threaten our tribe, nation, or culture, putting them at risk, we naturally develop a dislike for those who hold such detrimental perspectives on these sensitive subjects.
Double Standards and Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy is another reason behind the divide in society and individuals with different political ideology. As we discussed earlier, we humans have a habit of defending our beliefs, no matter how strong, weird, or wrong they might be.
Because of this, we often fail to acknowledge something as wrong simply because it aligns with our political ideology. Others are not blind to these double standards and hypocrisy, which is why they dislike such behavior. When individuals with centrist or opposing views witness others engaging in this behavior, it places invisible pressure on them as well.
This pressure leads them to defend certain nonsensical aspects of their own political ideology, fearing that failure to do so may result in the destruction of everything they hold dear.
For example, let’s consider a person who criticizes right-wing ideologies as extremist, bad, and corrupt. However, when it comes to discussing left-wing ideologies, they remain silent about the atrocities committed by communists, socialists, anarchists, and anti-capitalists, which are still being committed but in much larger but subtle ways.
A prime example of this is North Korea, where the atrocities committed are even more dangerous and severe than those of Nazi Germany. Ironically, the Nazi party was formerly known as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
Because of these double standards and hypocrisy, individuals with opposing political views are unlikely to respect and like each other. No one wants to acknowledge the faults in their own political ideology while being preoccupied with pointing out the faults of others.
Pseudo virtue
We all want to embody virtue and steer clear of negative judgments, whether from our family, friends, peers or online strangers. But what counts as ‘virtue’ can vary a lot depending on who you ask. If something is only seen as virtuous by some people, it’s not really a true virtue, and it can be called a pseudo-virtue.
For instance, some may believe that killing a child rapist is morally wrong, while others advocate for capital punishment or life imprisonment with no room for sympathy. Still, others argue for the sanctity of life, even for the rapist, claiming we have no right to take a life, regardless of the crime committed.
Unfortunately, there are countless examples of lawyers and activists defending criminals and terrorists, only to see them re-offend, often with even more heinous crimes. This fuels the perception that attempting to spare violent criminals from rightful punishment is a false virtue.
Furthermore, some believe it’s virtuous to criticize their own religion, culture, or country, even if their criticisms lack a strong foundation and understanding.
Let’s consider an example: There were individuals, some identifying as Hindus, who suggested that instead of constructing a temple for Lord Ram, a hospital or school should be built at that site.
Their stance was influenced by their political ideologies or Sick-ul-rism, viewing it as a virtuous and appropriate action. However, they overlooked the significance of such sacred sites, historical importance, faith, and the deep emotional connections and love among the devotees of Ram Ji.
They offered their pseudo-virtuous opinion without considering these crucial factors. What they fail to realize is that while hospitals and schools can be established in various locations across India, this unique temple can only be built in one place where people believe Ram Ji was born.
Building this temple holds a unique place in cultural and civilizational continuity. Preservation and restoration of temples like this are essential for maintaining our heritage and identity.
This “pseudo-virtue” often aligns with left political views, which does nothing but further widen the gap between people on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
Differing Traditional Beliefs
Culture, language, clothing, festivals, and other traditions play a vital role in enriching our world, adding vibrancy and beauty to our lives. Without these elements, the world would be dull and monotonous. However, it’s important to recognize that not all traditions align with modern ethical standards.
Some practices begin as precautions or protective measures aimed at safeguarding lives or addressing important needs. However, over time, these practices can evolve into traditions that persist even after the initial danger or necessity has passed.
Take, for instance, the Mursi tribe of Ethiopia, who adhere to the tradition of removing lower front teeth. While some experts speculate that this practice may have originated to aid individuals with lockjaw (trismus) in breathing and eating, it endures today as a cultural tradition.
Take another example, the tradition of Ghunghat, which originated as a measure to protect Hindu women from Islamic invaders and converts in the past. Over time, it has become ingrained in middle and lower-middle-class Hindu families, with many clinging to it without fully understanding its historical context or relevance.
Similarly, while Hindu marriages traditionally involve considerations such as family tree, gotra, and varna, which has some scientific basis, over time, false pride and greed have influenced marriage traditions. These traditions often restrict marriages to the same varna and different gotras only. This has led to animosity between different communities.
Because this old tradition does not allow inter-varna or so-called inter-caste marriages, it is not right or ethical from the current point of view. Many people have come to understand this and are now allowing inter-caste marriages. However, there are still some people who are against these inter-caste marriages, which is totally wrong.
The world is filled with festivals and clothing styles that are not compatible or ethical from today’s point of view. However, there are still individuals who staunchly defend these outdated festivals, clothes and traditions, viewing them as integral parts of their cultural or religious identity.
Because there are people who support these unethical or wrong traditions and some who oppose them, the dislike for each other exists.
Traditional media, social media and academia
The division and animosity between individuals with opposing political views are primarily exacerbated by the media. Instead of impartially sharing news and plain facts, these platforms often inject their own opinions, heavily influenced by their political leanings in the reporting style and news they present on their platforms and products.
These opinions, masquerading as facts, are frequently disseminated through prestigious newspapers such as the New York Times (NYT), Daily Mirror, The Hindu, and others. Readers of these newspapers, often considered elite or highly educated, tend to accept whatever they read as absolute truth, assuming that the writers, authors, or editors couldn’t be wrong due to the esteemed reputation of the publication.
This polarization isn’t one-sided; the same thing happens in right-leaning newspapers and news channels, but at a less sophisticated level. Readers of these newspapers or viewers of these news channels are considered dumb, bigoted, etc., by people on the opposite political spectrum.
Similar phenomena occur on social media platforms. Certain online handles and individuals, adept at articulating their views eloquently, gain credibility among their followers. Consequently, people are inclined to believe what they say or write, regardless of whether they are presenting truth or facts, or merely acting as pawns for political parties. Their followers blindly accept whatever they read or hear from their favorite social media expert.
Merely knowing which newspapers one reads or which news channels or social media handle one follows can often reveal a person’s ideology and perspective on the world, particularly their political inclination.
Academia, too, plays a major role in this division and propaganda. Their responsibility is to present only truth and facts and provide accurate knowledge to their students. However, instead of fulfilling this responsibility, they often poison their minds with half-truths, incorrect facts, and propaganda, most of which lean towards leftist ideologies. This is because many major institutions worldwide have a left bias, and these individuals prioritize their leftist ideology over everything else, which is extremely concerning when you think about it rationally.
When students and people interact with these three, their political ideology is shaped. Using the word ‘develop’ would be incorrect because this ideology is given or passed to these people. When they adopt these ideologies, they also acquire a degree of hate, dislike, or fear for other ideologies, which ultimately fuels their animosity. When they enter the real world, they bring their ideology with them, which fosters discontent for opposing views.
Potential Threats
By nature opposite political views are not compatible with each other. By it, I mean that If a person believes in something then they will become blind to the opposite view. For example, if a person believes in capitalism then they do not care about the socialist or communism because these views are exactly opposite of their beliefs and potentially dangerous to them too. Let us understand this with relevant example
Kolkata, formerly known as Kalikata (Land of Goddess Kali), was once a thriving and prestigious metropolitan city in India during the 1970s. It served as a prominent business hub, attracting numerous businessmen and entrepreneurs who found wealth and success within its bustling streets. An indicator of its significance was the inauguration of India’s first metro project, with its foundation laid on December 29, 1972, by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
The Result of Communism and Marxism in Kolkata
However, the city’s trajectory took a downturn with the emergence of poverty of aspirations and the influence of communist ideologies. The populace, particularly the underprivileged, succumbed to the allure of Marxist, socialist, and communist propaganda. Consequently, Jyoti Basu, a Marxist, assumed office as Chief Minister from June 21, 1977, to November 5, 2000.
The reign of the communist party resulted in numerous atrocities inflicted upon the native hindu population and refugees that came from east pakistan during war time. Despite this, the strong grip of propaganda ensured poor aspirations of people for their repeated electoral victories.
While those unaffected by communist indoctrination mourned the decline of their cherished city, once celebrated as the ‘City of Dreams,’ they couldn’t help but reflect on its glorious past.
Kolkata, which gave India gifted and brilliant minds like Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore, Oscar-winning filmmaker Satyajit Ray, the visionary Subhas Chandra Bose, the revered spiritual leader Swami Vivekananda, and the renowned poet Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, who penned ‘Vande Mataram,’ now struggles to produce such luminaries due to the influence of leftist ideologies.
To this day, the ruling party of West Bengal continues to undermine the legacy of prosperous Kolkata. The exodus of businesses from the city and state further exacerbated poverty, fueling the propaganda of communist and socialist political factions.
The world’s largest office building in Gujarat’s Surat is a result of capitalism and the promotion of an entrepreneurial spirit.
This is the prime example of the threat posed by divergent political views. When ideologies like communism prevail, they have detrimental effects on the country, state, and city, leading to atrocities, hatred, and poverty.
This is why people fear the potential impact of different political views, especially communism and political Islam, as they are not beneficial for the country, culture, or economy. Instead, they primarily serve the interests of the ideology itself.
Always putting ummah and religion first over the country of origin, refuge, or adopted country.
History offers numerous cautionary tales of how extreme ideologies, religious or political, have devastated entire regions. Just look at what happened to Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Persia, Iraq, Egypt, China, Indonesia, Cambodia, America, Africa, India, etc.
No one wants these things to happen in their countries with their native culture, or the opposite of this, which is ironic. That is why people dislike each other when they hold extreme and opposite views.
| Country | Transformation or condition | |
| Afghanistan Monarchy -> Communists -> Islamists Same pattern in Iran |  |  |
| N. Korea Vs S. Korea |  |  |
| Cambodia Then VS Now |  |  |
The Positive Side of this Dislike
Yes, there is a positive aspect to the existence of dislike stemming from opposing political views, as it serves to curb the extremes present on both ends of the spectrum.
For instance, groups like the misguided ‘red pill men society,’ promoting toxic beliefs and misogyny, or radical feminism with its misdirected venom toward men, are rightly criticized by those who recognize the harm in such extreme ideologies. It’s often said that the poison lies in the dose; when ideologies become excessively extreme, they turn toxic.
When people witness the radical ends of both sides, it becomes clear just how valuable moderation truly is. As a result, they naturally begin to grasp the significance of maintaining balance, or what we might call ‘maryada‘—a Sanskrit term emphasizing moral boundaries. These boundaries act as our moral compass, keeping us safely away from the dangerous edges of extremism.
Politics and democracy are the real reasons behind this divide, dislike, and hate.
In a democracy, politicians have the power to influence what people think about society, and they often do this to gain more political power and win elections.
But because there aren’t strong moral rules in politics, politicians sometimes exploit these divisions for their own benefit, and the majority of people are easily swayed. For instance, they might exploit issues like poverty to garner votes from certain groups of people, which only serves to keep society divided for their own gain.
Political parties without clear leadership or ideology often pose a significant problem because they lack a vision for the country’s future or a genuine concern for its well-being.
Their sole focus is on winning the next election, and they will stoop to any level to achieve this goal. This includes instigating violence that escalates into riots, supporting one side of the conflict while gaslighting the other, and deliberately polarizing and dividing society to secure more votes.
Collect money from every possible source, no matter what you have to do (corruption) later. Collect tax money and central budget funds, then use them to offer freebies like free water, electricity, alcohol (buy one, get one free), free bus rides, and 1,000 rupees monthly in bank accounts to win the next elections. Forget development; focus on winning votes.
The so-called ‘most educated’ state, filled with communists and Jihadis, is now heading towards bankruptcy.
Such parties are willing to form alliances with hostile foreign nations, corrupt businessmen, terrorists, anti-nationals and criminals in exchange for their support during elections. After winning the elections, favours given to these allies are often detrimental to the country’s growth and prosperity.
New Form of Government to Bridge the Divide
The most efficient way to bridge the divide and eliminate dislike is to completely overhaul the democratic system and adopt a new form of government. By removing the incentive for political parties to vie for power through elections and manipulate the public for their gain, societal divisions can be mitigated.
This new government would be composed exclusively of bright minds from the country, free from the desire for power, wealth, or status, and wholly dedicated to serving their nation, its people, and the environment.
Establishing such a government is not as simple as selecting ordinary politicians; it requires time, resources, and vision.
How will this new government come into being?
To begin, we need to streamline our educational system by eliminating unnecessary subjects that don’t contribute to the holistic development of young minds. It’s imperative to identify and nurture the talents of children from an early age, even before they enter middle school. Once their aptitudes are recognized, we should actively encourage them to pursue and develop their strengths.
For exceptionally bright and gifted children, it’s paramount to foster their intellect without restraint. Every child possesses innate leadership qualities, which should be nurtured as they grow. The selection process for government leadership would involve rigorous testing to identify the best, suitable and brightest minds.
These chosen individuals would then undergo training and mentorship, working alongside experienced leaders in government until they are ready to assume leadership roles themselves. The new government would govern for a fixed term of 20 years, with the next administration being selected three years before the end of their term. This transitional period allows for ample time for learning and preparation.
Throughout their tenure, the focus of the government would be on making decisions that prioritize the long-term well-being and progress of the nation and its citizens, even if these decisions may be unpopular in the short term. The overarching goal would be to drive forward the advancement and enrichment of both the nation and civilization as a whole.
Closing thoughts…
At the international level, aid or loans are rarely given without underlying vested interests, which may include expectations for trade advantages, demands for investment liberalization, interference in government policies, or efforts to exert influence over indigenous populations. All of which is not good for any sovereign country.
“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman thinks about the next generation.” — James Freeman Clarke
While we wait for a new system of government, democracy remains our current reality. In the meantime, electing the best possible leaders or less bad politicians for the country is crucial for our nation’s progress, prosperity, and the well-being of its people and civilization.
