There may not be any period in human history devoid of hatred and revenge, both of which have long fuelled conflict and violence. Today, however, the world is witnessing an alarming and unprecedented surge in hatred and revenge, both within and across national boundaries. This has led to violent confrontations between communities, both domestically and internationally. Modern technologies, such as the internet, mobile phones, and social media platforms, have further accelerated the spread of hate and vengeful sentiments worldwide.

Globalisation, once a powerful force for the movement of capital, technology, and people, now appears to be not only slowing but also reversing. Many developed countries have begun implementing increasingly restrictive immigration policies aimed at curbing the entry of people from poorer and developing nations. A telling example is US President Donald Trump's decision to impose a 50% tariff on goods imported from India and to increase the H-1 B visa fee to $100,000. Notably, around 70% of H-1 B visa holders in the US are Indian.

Simultaneously, mass protests, fuelled by rising hostility toward migrants, are erupting in several Western nations, including the United States, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. On September 13, 2025, approximately 150,000 people participated in a protest in London led by far-right activist Tommy Robinson, as reported by various media outlets.

In many countries, migrants are increasingly perceived as threats to national identity and economic stability. Politicians and public officials frequently use inflammatory and dehumanising rhetoric, which fuels xenophobia and incites racist and violent actions against migrant communities. Centre-right and national-conservative parties have embraced anti-immigrant narratives to cater to growing public sentiment, contributing to the rise of far-right parties across the West.

Beyond anti-immigrant hate, there has also been a disturbing increase in internal hatred based on political ideology, religion, and race. The United States has become a battleground for ideological conflict between the right and the left. Former President Donald Trump has played a central role in intensifying this polarisation, fostering an atmosphere of hate and vengeance toward left-leaning groups. The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, a staunch Trump supporter and right-wing ideologue, has further deepened the divide between conservatives and liberals. In response, Trump and top officials in his administration have publicly issued threats against left-leaning groups.

A particularly shocking episode unfolded at a memorial service in Arizona, where Erika, Charlie Kirk's widow, delivered a powerful message of forgiveness: "I forgive him because it is what Christ did. The answer to hate is not hate." To forgive the murderer of one's life partner—especially one who was in the prime of life and father to two young children—requires extraordinary courage and deep faith in Christian teachings.
In stark contrast, Donald Trump, speaking immediately after Erika, publicly disagreed with her sentiment. "I hate my opponents and I don't want the best for them," he said. For a Christian leader to proclaim hatred so openly is a disgrace to the faith and a troubling reflection of the current political climate.

While Charlie Kirk's assassination must be unequivocally condemned, his actions during his lifetime also warrant scrutiny. He dedicated his efforts to influencing American youth—often through divisive, hateful rhetoric that undermined human rights and dignity. Over the years, civil rights advocates have strongly criticised Kirk's views on Black Americans, women, the LGBTQ community, Muslims, and immigrants, labelling many of his public statements as racist and derogatory.

As Reverend Graylan Scott Hagler noted in an article titled "Racism, Rhetoric and Charlie Kirk: A Reality We Can't Ignore" (The Bay State Banner, September 17, 2025), the 31-year-old right-wing evangelical figure made inflammatory claims, including that Black pilots were incompetent and that gay people should be stoned. He opposed gun control, abortion, LGBTQ rights, and even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. He promoted Christian nationalism, spread COVID-19 misinformation, and falsely claimed election fraud in 2020. "Charlie Kirk expanded hatred, marketed the vile speech of old racism in new wineskins, and further jeopardised the lives and security of others," wrote Hagler.

In India, hatred and revenge have also taken a dangerous turn, particularly targeting supporters of secular democracy, liberal ideology, and religious minorities, especially Muslims and Christians. Since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, hate speech and communal polarisation have significantly increased. A report by the US-based India Hate Lab documented a 74% rise in anti-minority hate speech in 2024, with most of it directed against Muslims. Notable instances include the Haridwar "Dharma Sansad" event in December 2021, where speakers openly called for genocide against Muslims. During the 2024 Lok Sabha election campaign, Prime Minister Narendra Modi allegedly made Islamophobic remarks in 110 out of 173 speeches, according to Human Rights Watch.

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has also been a frequent target of vilification by BJP leaders and its IT Cell. In a recent News18 Kerala debate, BJP spokesperson Pintu Mahadev allegedly stated that "a bullet could hit Rahul Gandhi in the chest," implying that his political ambitions could lead to his assassination.

Environmental activist and innovator Sonam Wangchuk has become another victim of political retaliation, targeted for leading the people of Ladakh in their demand for statehood and constitutional recognition under the Eighth Schedule. Wangchuk is celebrated for his contributions to education, climate resilience, and innovation, particularly the Ice Stupa technique that creates artificial glaciers to store water. Yet, following his activism, he faced arrest and vilification by BJP leaders, government officials, and pro-government media. Amit Malviya, head of the BJP IT Cell, accused Wangchuk of inciting mobs and claimed he, with Congress support, had "set Leh on fire."

Hatred and revenge have permeated multiple layers of Indian society. A disturbing example was an event planned by "Paurush," a men's rights group in Indore, called "Surpanakha Dahan." The event aimed to publicly burn effigies of 11 women accused in criminal cases, including Sonam Raghuvanshi, charged with murdering her husband in Meghalaya. Thankfully, the Madhya Pradesh High Court banned the event, stating, "Even if someone faces a criminal case, burning their effigy and publicly tarnishing their image is against the Constitution and the law; it is completely unacceptable in a democracy."

Even the world of sports—particularly cricket, a game often seen as a unifying force—has not been spared from the toxicity of hate and revenge. During the Asia Cup tournament, Indian players refused to shake hands with the Pakistani team in protest against a terror attack in Pahalgam. The Indian team also declined to accept the trophy and medals from Mohsin Naqvi, head of both the Pakistan Cricket Board and the Asian Cricket Council, leading him to angrily walk away with the trophy. Political nationalism has increasingly poisoned the spirit of sportsmanship on the cricket field.

When hate speech is used publicly—especially by influential figures or broadcast through mass media—and is not condemned or punished, it becomes normalised. This normalisation lowers the threshold for what is considered acceptable public discourse. History has shown that hate speech often precedes communal riots, hate crimes, and long-term societal harm. It erodes the equal dignity of all citizens, a fundamental tenet of democracy.

To resist this slide into hatred and vengeance, societies must demand greater accountability, empathetic leadership, and enforcement of robust legal protections. The media must act responsibly, and citizens must remain engaged and vigilant. Once hate becomes entrenched, the cost—in trust, dignity, and human lives—becomes too high for any society to bear.