INDIANS CHAINED IN IDEOLOGIES

The simple purpose of an ideology is to integrate ideas so that people are better able to

understand the correlation between them, it is ironic that a tool for the unification of ideas is

being used to create division in the society.

Through the internet and the social media that exists on its shoulders, ideology is

being sold laced with polarizing propaganda, and votes are demanded from a section of

society, and security is promised in exchange to save them from the dangerous other section.

Whenever a campaign of political nature takes place, all the candidates, mostly parties put

forward their beliefs that may be their own or just for the sake of attracting votes, which acts

as an ideology for people to relate with and cast their votes according to their leanings. These

beliefs at times are common in many directions but there are almost always a few branches of

thoughts associated with them which are intended to divide the citizenry and attract votes,

this practice although has existed for decades but in the present scenario it is so much in the

face of the people that one has to be extremely ignorant to deny it’s existence.

Political parties now target the already hardcore followers while trying to swing the people

with infirm political choices as well. An unrealistic agenda will be pushed enough through

small leaders so that it reaches the fanatic following satisfying their ego while maintaining

enough plausible deniability by not including it formally in manifestos or being pushed by the

top leaders of the party. The term ideology is then again served by associating religious

connotations to it, and what goes complimentary with it is demonizing the ideology of the

competing candidates.

Whenever a new radical idea (which may be worthy of being adopted or discarded is a

separate discussion and requires context) enters the public domain, the opposition parties

(which in our context can be just about anyone) first starts to label the person with terms that
are meant to demonize both the idea and the person, for example- “Bhakt” “Librandu”

“Tukde-Tukde Gang” “Urban-Naxal”, these terms are used so loosely that they don’t hold

any credibility but they change the narrative in the favor of the accuser because they are not

coherent logical oppositional terms but are rather vague accusations which result in the

creation of a loop where both the sides, the opposers and the supporters engage in name-

calling rather than to discuss the idea rationally. This is the result of being set hard in

ideologies to the point where idea matters less and what matters more is the place where it is

coming from, if it comes from a person of a dissimilar ideology then the automatic route is to

discredit the idea.

The next grenade in the arsenal is shaming, that too to such a point that again the idea is

tossed out of the equation and only hate cultivates in the environment. The interesting part

here is that all such labels are used against people who prima-facie aren’t involved in such

grave acts, and the people who have already been convicted of such crimes are not being

yelled at on TVs, unlike the others.

This innate human fear of missing out is exploited by the political strata who often hand

down the people the narrow versions of their edited ideologies made to make people feel part

of a group and are then enraged by making them feel victimized so that they vote to access

protection, but what we need protection from is this practice of choosing ideologies just

because they correspond to one of our communal identities, be it religion or sect, and even

our educational standing as well where one is asked to believe in an ideology to be part of a

“woke” or “elite” group where they are made to feel that they are simply better than the

masses.

It's about time that we unshackle ourselves from these chains of ideologies that act as whips

of division. For a start, we can try to start with entering debates by assuming the possibility of
being wrong and being open to hearing what the other side has to say, without assuming ill

intention on the part of the other. Ideas should continue to be open to discussion and

improvement. The approach should be to engage with other people with an open mind, being

aware of the lack of one’s knowledge, the result will be that people will shy away from taking

extreme positions but the rather goal left will be to understand ideas and make them flourish,

we’ll proudly say that I know nothing but I’m willing to learn, and when one is willing to

learn he/she unshackle themselves from the need of getting handed out ideas or ideologies.

Submitted by – Akash Gulati